Redistricting in Ohio

in Ohio

Fiscal Budgets Ohio state budget and finances Tax policy in Ohio Finance Financial regulation in Ohio Pensions Public pensions in Ohio Pension health in Ohio Civil liberties Affirmative action in Ohio Campaign finance requirements in Ohio Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Ohio Education Charter schools in Ohio Higher education in Ohio Public education in Ohio School choice in Ohio Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Ohio Ballot access requirements for political parties in Ohio Political parties in Ohio Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Ohio Redistricting in Ohio Voting in Ohio Energy and Environment Energy policy in Ohio Fracking in Ohio Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Ohio Endangered species in Ohio Environmental policy in Ohio Healthcare Healthcare policy in Ohio Medicaid spending in Ohio Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Ohio Immigration Immigration in Ohio

Redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
The 2020 cycle
Congressional apportionment
Redistricting before 2024 elections
Redistricting committees
Deadlines
Lawsuits
Timeline of redistricting maps
2022 House elections with multiple incumbents
New U.S.House districts created after apportionment
Congressional maps
State legislative maps
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures
United States census, 2020
Majority-minority districts
Gerrymandering
Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Ohio's 15 United States representatives and 132 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States senators are not elected by districts but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States Census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.^[1][2][3][4]

Ohio was apportioned 15 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, 1 fewer than it received after the 2010 census.

On March 2, 2022, the Ohio Redistricting Commission approved a redrawn congressional map in a 5-2 vote along party lines, meaning the map lasted for four years.^[5] On March 18, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the map before the state's primary elections as part of the legal challenge that overturned the initial congressional map.^[6] This map took effect for Ohio's 2022 congressional elections. On September 23, 2023, the Ohio state legislature adopted new legislative maps.^[7] These maps were upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 27, 2023.^[8] Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Ohio
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Ohio
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Ohio's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.^[9][10]

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[12][13][14]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."^[14]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."^[14]

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.^[14][15]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[14][15]
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[14][15]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.^[14][15]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[16]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[1][17]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[21] Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[22] The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[23]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[24] On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[25]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[26]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.^[27]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.^[28][29][30]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.^{[31][32][33][34]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.^[35][36][37]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.^{[38][39][40][41]}

Race and ethnicity

See also: Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Ohio was home to one congressional majority-minority district.^[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of cracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.^[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result in packing, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.^[2][3][4]

State process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

Congressional redistricting procedures in Ohio

On May 8, 2018, voters in Ohio approved a constitutional amendment establishing new procedures for congressional redistricting. Beginning with the 2020 redistricting cycle, the following provisions were set to take effect:^[43][44]

• Following completion of the United States Census, state legislators can adopt a new congressional district map if three-fifths of the legislature's total membership vote to approve, including one-half of the minority party members. This map would apply for 10 years.
• If the legislature proves unable to adopt a new map, a commission will be formed to adopt a map. That commission will include the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and four legislators, two of whom must come from the legislature's minority party. A majority of the commission's members, including two members belonging to the minority party, must agree on a map. The map would apply for 10 years.
• If the commission proves unable to adopt a map, state legislators will be given a second chance to adopt a map. The map would have to be approved by three-fifths of the legislature's total membership, including one-third of the minority party's members. The map would apply for 10 years.
• If the legislature fails a second time, the majority party of the legislature, without support from the minority party, can adopt a map that would apply for four years.

Maps drawn by the legislature can be vetoed by the governor or a veto referendum campaign. The amendment stipulates that 65 of Ohio's counties cannot be split during redistricting (18 can be split once, and the state's five most populous counties can be split twice).^[43][44]

State legislative redistricting procedures in Ohio

On November 3, 2015, voters in Ohio approved a constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan state legislative redistricting commission. The commission comprises seven members: the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, one person appointed by the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, one person appointed by the House leader of the largest political party of which the speaker is not a member, one person appointed by the President of the Ohio State Senate, and one person appointed by the Senate leader of the largest political party of which the president is not a member.^[45][46]

Maps drawn by the commission are valid for 10 years if at least two commissioners from each major political party vote for them. Should the maps be passed along strictly partisan lines, the maps are valid for four years.^[45][46]

A six-member advisory commission is also involved in the congressional and state legislative redistricting processes. The majority leaders of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio State Senate each appoint three members, "at least one of whom must be from a different party, and at least one of whom must not be a legislator."^[47]

All legislative districts are required to be compact and made of "contiguous territory." Also, the "boundary of each district [must] be a single nonintersecting continuous line." The amendment forbids district plans from favoring or disfavoring either political party.^[45][46]

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also: How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Ohio, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also: United States congressional delegations from Ohio

Ohio comprises 15 congressional districts. The table below lists Ohio's current U.S. Representatives.

State legislative maps

See also: Ohio State Senate and Ohio House of Representatives

Ohio comprises 33 state Senate districts and 99 state House districts. Each Senate district comprises three House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, click here.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also: Redistricting in Ohio after the 2020 census

Ohio was apportioned 15 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented a net loss of one seat as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[48] This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• November 27, 2023: The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the state's legislative maps, dismissing several lawsuits against them.^[8][49]
• September 7, 2023: The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Huffman v. Neiman after the petitioners who filed the original lawsuit requested the court to dismiss the case and leave the boundaries in place for the 2024 election.^[50][51]
• June 30, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ohio Supreme Court's decision that ruled the congressional district boundaries that the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted on March 2, 2022, were unconstitutional. SCOTUS remanded the case back to the state supreme court for consideration in light of SCOTUS' decision in Moore v. Harper.^[52]
• July 19, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the congressional district boundaries that the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted on March 2, 2022, were unconstitutional. The 2022 congressional elections will take place using the boundaries the redistricting commission adopted in March 2022 and the state supreme court directed the Ohio General Assembly to pass a compliant plan within 30 days.
• May 28, 2022: A federal court ruling took effect, which ordered the use of legislative maps approved by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in February for the 2022 elections.
• May 25, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Ohio Redistricting Commission's resubmitted legislative maps and ordered the commission to redraw them.
• May 5, 2022: The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted to resubmit maps it had approved on February 24 to the Ohio Supreme Court.
• April 20, 2022: A federal court ruled that if legislative maps were not approved by the state court by May 28, the federal court would order an August 2 primary election date using the third set of maps approved by the Ohio Redistricting Commission.
• April 14, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Ohio Redistricting Commission's redrawn legislative maps and ordered the commission to redraw them.
• March 28, 2022: The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted to approve redrawn legislative maps.
• March 21, 2022: A lawsuit was filed challenging the March 2 congressional map (Neiman v. LaRose).
• March 18, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the redrawn congressional map approved by the redistricting commission on March 2.
• March 7, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Ohio Redistricting Commission's redrawn legislative maps and ordered the commission to redraw them.
• March 2, 2022: The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 5-2 to approve a redrawn congressional map.
• February 24, 2022: The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 4-3 to approve redrawn legislative maps.
• February 18, 2022: A federal lawsuit was filed against the Ohio Redistricting Commission. The lawsuit asked the district court to enact the second set of legislative maps that had previously been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court (Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission).
• February 17, 2022: The Ohio Redistricting Commission did not meet the court-ordered deadline to draw new legislative maps.
• February 9, 2022: Ohio legislative leaders said they would not draw a new congressional map, meaning the Ohio Redistricting Commission assumed responsibility for drawing the map.
• February 7, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the Ohio Redistricting Commission's second set of approved legislative maps and ordered the commission to redraw them within 10 days.
• January 25, 2022: The plaintiffs in three cases challenging the state legislative maps filed objections against the revised legislative maps (Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, and League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission).
• January 22, 2022: The Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 5-2 to approve a new set of state legislative maps.
• January 14, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the state's enacted congressional map and ordered the Ohio State Legislature to redraw it.
• January 12, 2022: The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the state's enacted legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days.
• November 30, 2021:
  • A second lawsuit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio's enacted congressional map (League of Women Voters of Ohio v. DeWine).
  • A federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio challenging Ohio's enacted congressional and state Senate maps (Simon v. DeWine).
• November 22, 2021: A lawsuit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio's enacted congressional map (Adams v. DeWine).
• November 20, 2021: Governor Mike DeWine (R) signed the congressional map into law.
• November 18, 2021: The Ohio House of Representatives approved the congressional map in a 55-36 vote.
• November 16, 2021: The Ohio State Senate voted 24-7 to approve the congressional map.
• November 15, 2021: Members of the Ohio State Legislature released their final congressional map proposal.
• October 31, 2021: The Ohio Redistricting Commission did not enact maps before the second deadline for congressional map enactment.
• September 30, 2021: The state legislature did not enact maps before the first deadline for congressional map enactment.
• September 27, 2021: A third lawsuit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio's enacted legislative maps (Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission).
• September 24, 2021: A second lawsuit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio's enacted legislative maps (Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Commission).
• September 23, 2021: A lawsuit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio's enacted legislative maps (League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission).
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• September 15, 2021: The Ohio Redistricting Commission approved state legislative maps for four years in a 5-2 commission vote.
• September 9, 2021: Members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission released legislative redistricting proposals.
• August 31, 2021: Members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission released legislative redistricting proposals.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enacted state legislative district maps

State legislative maps enacted in 2023

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

On September 23, 2023, the Ohio state legislature adopted new legislative maps.^[53] These maps were upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 27, 2023.^[8]

State Senate

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Ohio’s 2024 state legislative elections.

State House of Representatives

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle. The map on the right was in effect for Ohio’s 2024 state legislative elections.

State legislative maps enacted in 2021-2022

A federal court ruling on Ohio's legislative maps took effect on May 28, 2022, which ordered maps drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in February be used for the 2022 elections and set a legislative primary date of August 2.^[54] These maps took effect for Ohio's 2022 state legislative elections.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission approved new state legislative district maps by a 5-2 vote on September 16, 2021. The two Democratic members of the commission, state Rep. Emilia Sykes (D) and state Sen. Vernon Sykes (D), dissented.^[55] Senate President Matt Huffman (R), a member of the commission, estimated that the new maps would create 62 Republican seats and 37 Democratic seats in the House, and 23 Republican seats and 10 Democratic seats in the Senate. Cleveland.com reported that Democrats on the commission agreed with Huffman's Senate estimates, but said the new House map would create 65 Republican seats and 34 Democratic seats.^[55]

On January 12, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the state's enacted legislative maps, ordering the Ohio Redistricting Commission to redraw them within 10 days.^[56] The commission voted to approve a new set of maps in a 5-2 vote on January 22. Click here to view the House map, and click here to view the Senate map.

On February 7, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the state's redrawn legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to submit new maps.^[57][58] The commission did not meet the February 17 deadline.^[59] On February 24, the Ohio Redistricting Commission voted 4-3 to approve new legislative maps. The maps can be viewed here. State Auditor Keith Faber (R) joined the two Democratic members of the commission in voting against the maps.^[60]

On March 7, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected redrawn legislative maps and ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to draw new maps by March 28.^[61] On March 22, the commission agreed to appoint two independent consultants to assist in the map-making process.^[62] State Sen. Vernon Sykes (D) nominated University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald and state Rep. Bob Cupp (R) nominated National Demographics Corporation president Douglas Johnson.^[63] On March 28, the Ohio Redistricting Commission approved new state legislative district boundaries in a 4-3 vote. DeWine, La Rose, Huffman, and Cupp voted to approve the new boundaries, and Russo, Sykes, and Faber voted against.^[64] The commission approved maps it had drawn, since the Senate map drawn by the independent consultants was not complete at the time of the vote.^[65] Click here to view the maps.

On April 14, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the Ohio Redistricting Commission's legislative maps for the fourth time and ordered the commission to redraw the maps by May 6.^[66] On May 5, the commission voted 4-3 to resubmit legislative maps it had previously submitted to the court on February 24.^[67] DeWine, La Rose, Huffman, and Cupp voted to approve the boundaries, and Russo, Sykes, and Faber voted against.^[67] The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the maps on May 25 and ordered the commission to redraw them by June 3.^[68]

The maps can be viewed here.

Reactions to 2021-2022 state legislative maps

A statement from the commission explaining the manner by which districts were allocated said: "The Commission considered statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years. There were sixteen such contests. When considering the results of each of those elections, the Commission determined that Republican candidates won thirteen out of sixteen of those elections. [...] Accordingly, the statewide proportion of districts whose voters favor each political party corresponds closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."^[69]

Following the enactment of the maps, Huffman released a statement saying: “These house and senate maps will be in place for the next four years, and represent an important first step towards approving the next map that will complete the decade. [...] I’m convinced we could’ve reached a ten-year map. However, special interests pressured democrats to not support it, asking voters to extend the deadline to accomplish that.”^[70]

Leading up to the vote, Emilia Sykes disapproved of the maps saying they were overly partisan and she would “call it offensive and plain wrong to move forward this map [...] to put forth something that so arrogantly flies in the face of what people, our voters, asked us to do, not once, but twice.”^[55]

Commission members Gov. Mike DeWine (R) and Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) expressed disapproval of the maps and said they expected court challenges to follow their vote. DeWine said: “Along with the secretary of state I will vote to send this matter forward but it will not be the end of it. We know that this matter will be in court. [...] What I am sure in my heart is that this committee could have come up with a bill that was much more clearly constitutional.”^[71]

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also: Redistricting in Ohio after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Ohio lost two congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly. On September 21, 2011, the legislature approved a congressional map, which was signed into law on September 26, 2011. Opponents threatened to subject the map to a veto referendum. In Ohio, legislation that is not related to spending may be subjected to a veto referendum if it does not pass the legislature by a two-thirds vote. Democratic opponents of the maps commenced a petition drive to put the issue before voters in the next statewide election. This proved unnecessary, however, as a revised congressional map passed the state legislature on December 14, 2011, and was signed into law the next day.^[47][72]

A constitutional amendment that would have established an independent congressional redistricting commission was defeated by voters on November 6, 2012.

On May 3, 2019, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled unanimously that Ohio's congressional district plan constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. The court held that the plan, enacted in 2011 by a Republican legislature and governor, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Democrats. The panel, comprising Judges Karen Moore (appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton), Timothy Black (appointed by Democrat Barack Obama), and Michael Watson (appointed by Republican George W. Bush), enjoined the state from conducting any future congressional elections under the 2011 plan. The court ordered the state to enact a remedial plan by June 14, 2019. On May 10, 2019, state officials petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of the lower court's ruling.^[73][74] The high court granted the stay on May 24, 2019.^[75]

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On September 28, 2011, the politician redistricting commission approved new state legislative district maps. Although these maps were subject to litigation, they were ultimately upheld.^[47]

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

See state election laws

The following is a list of recent redistricting bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Ohio state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of Ohio ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Ohio.

1. Ohio Apportionment of Legislative Districts Amendment (May 1967)
2. Ohio Legislative Redistricting Amendment (May 1965)
3. Ohio Congressional District Apportionment Referendum (1915)
4. Ohio Issue No. 4, Redistricting Commission Initiative (2005)
5. Ohio Senatorial Reapportionment Amendment (1921)
6. Ohio Issue 2, Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Commission Amendment (2012)
7. Ohio County Representation, Amendment 2 (1903)
8. Ohio Redistricting of Legislative Districts Amendment (1967)
9. Ohio Establishment of Reapportionment and Redistricting Commission Initiative (1981)
10. Ohio Bipartisan Redistricting Commission Amendment, Issue 1 (2015)
11. Ohio Legislative Districts, Amendment 5 (October 1857)
12. Ohio Apportionment of the General Assembly, Amendment 1 (1889)
13. Ohio Apportionment of the General Assembly, Amendment 1 (1893)
14. Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission Amendment (2024)

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."^[76]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."^[77]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."^[78]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."^[79]

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also: Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, see this article.

In Ohio, there were seven competitive races for the Ohio House of Representatives in 2012, compared to fourteen in 2010. There were ten mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to nine in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of six competitive elections.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Redistricting Ohio. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Ohio after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes

v • e Election policy Election legislation Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker • Election legislation tracking: weekly digest • Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics Election administration Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Washington, D.C. • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Voting policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Electoral systems policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Primary elections policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Redistricting policy Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Recount laws Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for political candidates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for presidential candidates Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Ballot access for political parties Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Electoral systems Single-winner system • Multi-winner system • Block voting system • Plurality voting system • Majority voting system • Top-two primary • Blanket primary • Open primary • Closed primary • Semi-closed primary • Top-four primary • Ranked-choice voting (RCV) • STAR voting • Approval voting • Fusion voting

	v • e State of Ohio Columbus (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy