Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission

S.D. Ohio

Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission

DecidedMarch 18, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00773

StatusUnknown

This text of Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL GONIDAKIS, et al., : Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:22-cv-0773 v. Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley OHIO REDISTRICTING Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers COMMISSION, et al., : Defendants. OPINION & ORDER Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion (ECF No. 73) for appointment of a three- judge panel, and the parties’ responses thereto (ECF Nos. 76-81), the Court concludes that this case should come before a panel to determine the path forward. Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating the Commission’s third map, see League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n, 2022-Ohio-789, the question before this Court now exceeds a simple ripeness issue of whether state processes remain ongoing, and instead implicates the willingness and ability of state branches timely to perform their redistricting duty. Cf Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 33-34, 36-37 (1993). The former is a straightforward justiciability ruling that may be entered by a single Judge, see Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 100 (1974); the latter demands a more searching analysis that approaches the province of a panel. The Court suggests no view on the propriety of a renewed stay while state processes continue on a fourth map, but it finds the parties’ arguments on that issue are more appropriate before a panel.

Accordingly, the stay entered by the Court at the status conference of March 14, 2022, is LIFTED. The Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has been notified of the panel request, per 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1). His Order appointing a panel will follow on the docket. The Clerk shall terminate the Motions to Stay filed by the LWVO Parties (ECF No. 33) and the Bennett Parties (ECF No. 59), noting that the requested stay was GRANTED by oral ruling at the status conference of March 14 but is LIFTED by this Opinion. The Clerk also shall terminate Plaintiffs’ Second Emergency Motion to Vacate the Stay and for Immediate Appointment of a Three-Judge Panel (ECF No. 73), which is GRANTED. All deadlines that were suspended during the stay—including for responsive pleading and for briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction—will be addressed by the panel. IT IS SO ORDERED. □□

CHIEF U D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: March 18, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL GONIDAKIS, et al., : Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:22-cv-0773 v. Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley OHIO REDISTRICTING Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers COMMISSION, et al., : Defendants. OPINION & ORDER Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion (ECF No. 73) for appointment of a three- judge panel, and the parties’ responses thereto (ECF Nos. 76-81), the Court concludes that this case should come before a panel to determine the path forward. Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating the Commission’s third map, see League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n, 2022-Ohio-789, the question before this Court now exceeds a simple ripeness issue of whether state processes remain ongoing, and instead implicates the willingness and ability of state branches timely to perform their redistricting duty. Cf Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 33-34, 36-37 (1993). The former is a straightforward justiciability ruling that may be entered by a single Judge, see Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 100 (1974); the latter demands a more searching analysis that approaches the province of a panel. The Court suggests no view on the propriety of a renewed stay while state processes continue on a fourth map, but it finds the parties’ arguments on that issue are more appropriate before a panel.

Accordingly, the stay entered by the Court at the status conference of March 14, 2022, is LIFTED. The Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has been notified of the panel request, per 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1). His Order appointing a panel will follow on the docket. The Clerk shall terminate the Motions to Stay filed by the LWVO Parties (ECF No. 33) and the Bennett Parties (ECF No. 59), noting that the requested stay was GRANTED by oral ruling at the status conference of March 14 but is LIFTED by this Opinion. The Clerk also shall terminate Plaintiffs’ Second Emergency Motion to Vacate the Stay and for Immediate Appointment of a Three-Judge Panel (ECF No. 73), which is GRANTED. All deadlines that were suspended during the stay—including for responsive pleading and for briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction—will be addressed by the panel. IT IS SO ORDERED. □□

CHIEF U D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: March 18, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonidakis-v-ohio-redistricting-commission-ohsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack