COLUMBUS, Ohio — On Monday morning, the two Democrats on the Ohio Redistricting Commission publicly called on the five Republican commissioners to come back to the drawing table and adopt new legislative maps.
However, none of the Republicans showed up.
What You Need To Know
- The two Democrats on the Ohio Redistricting Commission publicly called on the five Republican commissioners to come back to the drawing table and adopt new legislative maps
- It has been 11 days since the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the fourth set of maps adopted by Republican commissioners, and so far, none have agreed to meet
- Last week, a three-judge federal court panel said if the state does not resolve its legislative redistricting issue by May 28, then it will implement a pair of maps the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional
Ohio Redistricting Commission co-chair and state Senator Vernon Sykes, D-Akron, along with Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, tried to call a meeting in the room where the commission had previously met but the doors were locked.
An Ohio Senate Democratic Spokesperson told Spectrum News 1 that Sykes’ office did not submit a request Friday to the House Clerk’s office to use the committee room but called and appeared in person at the office Monday.
In both instances, Sykes was denied access to the room. However, an Ohio House Republican Spokesperson claimed the Democrats filed no request with the clerk’s office.
Despite that, Democrats reminded their Republican counterparts the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the commission to submit new maps by May 6.
“We’re here to demonstrate that we are ready, able and prepared to continue to work to do the people’s work and produce a constitutional map,” said Sykes.
It has been 11 days since the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the fourth set of maps adopted by Republican commissioners. So far, none have agreed to meet.
“We, as a commission, always have to work together on decisions like that. And if we have something to announce, then I’ll be happy to let you know about it,” Secretary of State Frank LaRose, R-Ohio, said Friday.
Last week, a three-judge federal court panel said if the state does not resolve its legislative redistricting issue by May 28, then it will implement a pair of maps the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.
“If it’s not possible for Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement, the responsibility is with the majority. And in this case, the majority is the Republican Party. It’s our responsibility to pass maps,” LaRose said Friday.
The judges also said they would set the state’s primary for general assembly and state central committee candidates for Aug. 2.
“We’re talking about an additional at least $25 million to hold this second primary because the commissioners have not done their work, and that’s on top of the $9 million that we have already appropriated to the secretary of state’s office to administer this current primary because of all the confusion leading up to it,” said Russo.
Commissioners have been threatened with contempt charges previously in the redistricting cycle, but no hearing ever took place regarding possible consequences if they do not meet the May 6 deadline.
“I’ve never thought that was a serious thing,” LaRose said Friday. “And to me, it’s a foolish notion, quite honestly, that one branch of government, the judicial branch, could summon two other branches, the executive and the legislative branch, into their chambers because they don’t like the way that we’ve been doing our job.”
Baldwin Wallace University political science professor Thomas Sutton, Ph.D. said the Ohio Supreme Court’s role in the checks and balances of government in this process is more its rulings than anything else. With that said, the court has the legal power to hold the commissioners in contempt.
Sutton questioned what effect it will have on achieving what the court wants.
“There’s obviously a lot of back and forth that’s going on that the court, I think, is reaching its limit on what it can do to try to enforce what it sees as the constitutional parameters of redistricting,” said Sutton.
