Redistricting debate continues as split primary election appears likely
 
The ongoing battle over state legislative redistricting continued this week as the State Redistricting Commission and a federal court hearing drove the week’s developments.
 
Following the third invalidation of state legislative district lines by the Ohio Supreme Court, the State Redistricting Commission convened once again this week to attempt to pass constitutional legislative district maps. Facing a midnight deadline on Monday evening, the commission, by a 4-3 vote, passed an updated version of the previous district maps. Independent mapmakers hired by the commission had been working on maps, but a majority of the members on the commission ultimately voted to adopt updated versions of the third round of maps instead. Majority members of the redistricting commission cited the looming deadline and that work had not yet been completed on the independent maps.
 
Once again, sharp disagreements between redistricting commission members were evident. Litigants challenging the redistricting plans in the Ohio Supreme Court requested that the Court hold the commission members in contempt.
 
Meanwhile, litigation in federal court this week left control of the primary election and redistricting process within the state’s hands, at least for the time being. A suit filed in federal court is attempting to force the state to utilize previously passed maps by the redistricting commission to allow for the primary election to move forward. The court also is considering moving the May 3^rd primary date. The three-judge panel on Wednesday ultimately decided against intervening at this time, allowing the state more time to sort out its redistricting process. Stated Judge Amul Tharpar, “We want to wait as long as possible for Ohio to solve their own mess.”
 
The court may not wait long, however. A “drop dead” date of April 20 has been set. After which, the court may reconsider its decision.
 
In other elections news, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose this on Thursday sent a letter to legislative leaders, indicating that a split or bifurcated primary would be necessary. All local, statewide and congressional elections would be held on May 3^rd, with a second primary election held for statehouse races at a later date, mostly likely August 2^nd. In LaRose’s letter, he shared his concerns for the “unbudgeted cost to our counties that they will need assistance in recovering.”
 
CCAO strongly supports full state funding for a second primary election.
 
Legislative action from the General Assembly establishing a second primary date is anticipated, although the specifics are not known at this time.
 
Any questions can be directed to CCAO Policy Analyst Adam Schwiebert.

Legislation regarding outside counsel for county judges draws scrutiny
 
Testimony continued this week in the House Civil Justice Committee regarding legislation that would grant judges considerable authority to independently appoint outside legal counsel.
 
House Bill 488, sponsored by state Reps. Diane Grendell and Tavia Galonski, makes numerous updates to Ohio’s guardianship laws. Many of these changes are non-controversial, and CCAO has taken no position on these provisions of the bill.
 
However, also included in the legislation are provisions which would authorize courts of common pleas, a division of the court, or county court to employ outside legal counsel at its choosing. The legislation would eliminate existing statute which requires judges to work with county commissioners and the county prosecutor to retain outside counsel for judges. Oftentimes, judges retain outside legal counsel in order to bring suits against fellow county officeholders.
 
Under the legislation, judges would be able to retain outside counsel at their discretion in any action or proceeding against any county public officer or board represented by the county prosecutor as well as for legal representation concerning writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition actions. The hourly rate paid for judges’ outside counsel would be limited to the highest rate paid by the county board of commissioners for outside legal counsel. The total compensation paid for outside judicial legal counsel could not exceed the total annual compensation paid to the county prosecutor.
 
CCAO maintains that judges should only be able to hire their own legal counsel if the prosecutor, the commissioners, or both have a conflict of interest and are refusing the judge’s request. The existing process provides a necessary check and balance. The current process was recently upheld in a 5-2 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in O’Diam v. Greene County Board of Commissioners. HB 488 would effectively overturn that decision.
 
CCAO as well as the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association submitted joint opposition testimony to this legislation.