ICYMI: Eric Holder Statement on SCOTUS Declining to Take Up Ohio Republican Attempt to Weaken Checks and Balances
For Immediate Release
July 1, 2023
Contact
Jena Doyle
doyle@redistrictingaction.org
ICYMI: Eric Holder Statement on SCOTUS Declining to Take Up Ohio Republican Attempt to Weaken Checks and Balances
This marks NDRC Affiliates’ 5th victory before SCOTUS this term
Washington, D.C. — Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up Huffman v. Neiman, a Republican appeal arguing a more extreme version of the independent state legislature (ISL) theory than what was pursued in Moore v. Harper.
In addition to asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the Ohio Supreme Court does not have the authority to serve as a check over the state legislature regarding federal elections, including congressional redistricting, Ohio Republicans went further to argue that the redistricting reform enacted by the Ohio voters through a ballot initiative – now enshrined in the state’s constitution – is unenforceable. The appeal asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ohio State Supreme Court’s decision in Neiman v. LaRose, in which the state supreme court held that the state’s Republican-drawn congressional map is unconstitutional and ordered the redraw of a congressional map that is compliant with the Ohio Constitution.
This marks the fifth victory for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) and affiliates before the Supreme Court of the United States this term. The underlying state lawsuit, Neiman v. LaRose, was initiated by the National Redistricting Action Fund (NRAF), the 501(c)(4) affiliate of the NDRC.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., the 82nd Attorney General of the United States, issued the following statement:
“This is an important validation of our system of checks and balances, and the Ohio Supreme Court should move quickly to reaffirm the state’s constitutional prohibition against partisan gerrymandering. Ohio voters, who went to the ballot box in 2018 and overwhelmingly demanded reform for their state’s congressional redistricting process—the very same reform the Republican petitioners in this case initially supported—deserve to have that reform upheld and enforced.
“Throughout the redistricting process in Ohio, Republicans demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to gerrymander. And, make no mistake, this was another attempt by Republicans to use our nation’s highest tribunal to circumvent the will of the voters, state law, and the state judicial branch, all for the sake of retaining power through gerrymandering.
“A bipartisan majority of the Ohio Supreme Court has decided in favor of fair maps seven times before. Given that neither the law nor precedent has changed, the Ohio Supreme Court should apply the law without bias or political agenda and put a halt once again to Ohio Republican attempts to gerrymander.
“Our system of checks and balances should be respected and upheld by both parties. Yet, we have seen an alarming pattern across the country, from North Carolina and Pennsylvania to Ohio, where Republicans have run to our nation’s highest court in an attempt to weaken a pillar of our democracy—all because they were held to account by their state’s judicial branch. The willingness by too many Republicans to pursue such dangerous arguments in the first place should not be lost on the public.”
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
The Ohio Supreme Court’s order requiring a new map was the result of a lawsuit filed in March 2022 by Ohio voters supported by the NRAF in their ongoing effort to secure a fair congressional map. In July 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state’s second congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. The second map, passed by the Republican-controlled Ohio Redistricting Commission in March, made some changes to the state’s original congressional map – though not nearly enough to make it actually fair. The first map was passed by Republicans in the state legislature in November 2021 and invalidated as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander by the Ohio Supreme Court, in an earlier NRAF lawsuit, on January 14, 2022.
###