Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 270 Filed: 05/09/19 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 23715

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE )
ET AL.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LARRY HOUSEHOLDER ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 1:18-cv-357
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO
STAY PENDING APPEAL

Before: Moore, Circuit Judge; Black and Watson, District Judges.
Before the Court are Defendants’ and Intervenors’ motions to stay this Court’s injunction
pending appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. See Dkt. 266 (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay);
Dkt. 268 (Intervenors’ Mot. to Stay). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. See Dkt. 269 (Pls.’ Opp’n).
Defendants and Intervenors waived the opportunity for a reply brief, and the motions are now ripe
for decision.
“A stay is not a matter of right . . . .” See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation
omitted). Courts evaluate four factors in considering a stay pending appeal:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the
appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent
a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and
(4) the public interest in granting the stay.
See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 661 (6th Cir. 2016); see also
Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.
The Court has reviewed these motions and briefs, and the Court finds that the arguments
raised in the motions mirror the issues considered and ruled upon when the Court previously denied

1

 Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 270 Filed: 05/09/19 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 23716

the motion to stay the trial in this matter. See Dkt. 213 (Order Denying Mot. to Stay Trial). No
new arguments persuade the Court that a stay is now warranted, and therefore the Court adheres
to its prior analysis. See id. (denying a stay of trial because any effect of Common Cause v. Rucho
(S. Ct. No. 18-422) and Benisek v. Lamone (S. Ct. No. 18-726) on this case is unknown, and the
public welfare, relative hardships, and time constraints of this case weigh strongly against a stay).
Moreover, Defendants and Intervenors attempt to relitigate the merits of the case in these motions
and avoid the Court’s finding and conclusion that the current map is unconstitutional and has thus
harmed voters. For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order, we reject the arguments that
attempt to relitigate the merits of this case. See Dkt. 262 (Op. & Order).
The Court also takes this opportunity to emphasize and clarify two points. First and
foremost, Defendants have not changed their position that a new map would need to be in place
no later than September 20, 2019. See Dkt. 185-1 (Wolfe Decl. at 2). The Court needs sufficient
time to assess properly whether any potential State-enacted remedial plan is constitutionally
acceptable, and, if a remedial plan is not constitutionally acceptable, the Court needs adequate time
to work with a special master to draw a map and consider any objections from the parties to such
a plan. This may take time, and the Court will carefully analyze any remedial plan so that the
voters in Ohio can avoid another election with unconstitutionally drawn districts. Ensuring a
remedial plan is in place prior to the deadline is the optimal way to avoid voter confusion.
Presently, Defendants maintain that deadline is September 20, 2019. (Again, we observe that H.B.
369, the actual plan that was used in the 2012 elections, was signed into law on December 15,
2011.) The Court is committed to working with Defendants’ deadline while also discharging its
“own duty to cure illegally gerrymandered districts . . . .” See North Carolina v. Covington, 138
S. Ct. 2548, 2553–54 (2018).

2

 Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 270 Filed: 05/09/19 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 23717

Second, the Court’s Order does not “require[] both houses of the General Assembly to
separately introduce . . . a new congressional districting plan . . . .” See Dkt. 266 (Defs.’ Mot. to
Stay at 12) (emphasis added). One house of the General Assembly could introduce one new plan,
which could then pass both houses and be signed by the Governor; the State House of
Representatives and State Senate need not introduce separate and different plans for consideration.
The Court’s Order, however, requires Defendants to submit alternative plans (if any) considered
by the General Assembly or any constituent committee. See Dkt. 262 (Op. & Order at 295). In
fact, the Court’s Order does not require the State to draw its own remedial plan at all, but the Court
has allowed the State the opportunity to cure its own unconstitutional gerrymander. Id. at 294–96.
The Court continues to hope that the State will take that opportunity.
Accordingly, the relevant factors and circumstances of this case continue to weigh against
granting a stay. The Court therefore DENIES the motions to stay this Court’s Order.

ENTERED: May 9, 2019
s/ Karen Nelson Moore
HONORABLE KAREN NELSON MOORE
United States Circuit Judge
s/ Timothy S. Black
HONORABLE TIMOTHY S. BLACK
United States District Judge
s/ Michael H. Watson
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WATSON
United States District Judge

3