In one of the most consequential rulings of the current redistricting cycle, the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the General Assembly’s new state legislative maps, saying the plan violates the Ohio Constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering.
The justices, in a 4-3 decision, ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to start over and produce maps for the state House and Senate in accordance with the requirements laid out in the state Constitution.
The majority opinion found that, based on statewide voting history, the maps should hew closer to an expected 54 percent share for Republicans, rather than 70 percent expected in the maps that have now been overruled.
“[T]he commission is required to attempt to draw a plan in which the statewide proportion of Republican-leaning districts to Democratic-leaning districts closely corresponds to those percentages,” Justice Melody Stewart wrote for the majority, which included three Democratic justices and one Republican who broker with her party: Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor.
O’Connor, in her concurring opinion, highlighted the work done by independent redistricting commissions in other states. The Ohio Redistricting Commission is made up of six state lawmakers, four of whom are Democrats.
“Having now seen firsthand that the current Ohio Redistricting Commission — comprised of statewide elected officials and partisan legislators — is seemingly unwilling to put aside partisan concerns as directed by the people’s vote, Ohioans may opt to pursue further constitutional amendment to replace the current commission with a truly independent, nonpartisan commission that more effectively distances the redistricting process from partisan politics,” O’Connor wrote.
Under Ohio’s Constitution, maps approved along partisan lines are only in effect for four years, rather than the typical 10. The commission now needs to restart the process, with a new plan required within 10 days. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also reviewing Ohio’s congressional map, which was similarly approved along partisan lines.
“It’s worth flagging that this is the first time a pure partisan effect provision has been enforced by a state supreme court,” Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos wrote for the Election Law Blog. “The court’s analysis vindicates all the effort that has been poured into enacting these provisions at the state level (and proposing them at “the federal level).”
The lawsuit, brought by the League of Women Voters of Ohio, was among a number of suits challenging Ohio’s new maps.
Following a 2019 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, states are the final arbiters of partisan gerrymandering. When asked to rule on congressional district maps created by Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland, a 5-4 majority determined the federal judicial system had no role to play.
“None of the proposed tests for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernable and manageable," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, from which all four Democratic justices dissented.
Therefore, opponents of partisan gerrymandering have turned to state courts. Ballotpedia is tracking approximately 50 lawsuits, some of which focus on process while others target state or congressional district maps.
Demonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear oral arguments on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
Luz Angela Nuñez with her daughter Aisha Quershi Nuñez at their home in College Point, Queens. Photo: Mia Anzalone for Documented.
Kimberly Alvarez, 25, with her daughter Evangeline and her husband John Alvarez in Medellin, Colombia. Photo courtesy of Kimberly Alvarez.Alvarez arrived in New York City in February 2024 with her husband John Alvarez as asylum seekers from Venezuela. In April 2025, Alvarez found out she was pregnant with her first child, a baby girl. Her first reaction, she said, was fear.“How am I going to keep her alive?” she said. “That’s what I was thinking. ‘How am I going to be able to take care of her?’”At the beginning of Alvarez’s pregnancy, she said she was aware of the immigration enforcement occurring around the country, but vowed not to let it deter her from showing up to her doctor’s appointments.“When you went out, you were always on alert because you didn’t know if [ICE] might be around. I never saw anything suspicious,” Alvarez said. “But of course, you feel scared.”In October, when Alvarez was six months pregnant, her husband was detained by ICE agents at 26 Federal Plaza. When the immediate shock wore off, she obsessively checked the Online Detainee Locator System to find out where her husband went. A day later, she discovered that he was being kept at Delaney Hall detention center in New Jersey. Alvarez quickly set up an account to pay for phone calls, and every two days, she would pay about $10 for a one-hour call, updating her husband about the baby, her appointments and how she was doing.“Crying was the only way for me to release the tension,” said Alvarez, who worried that her lack of sleep and bad diet were impacting her baby. “Crying was the only way for me to release the tension.”—Kimberly AlvarezThat tension built up day by day, week by week following her husband’s arrest. Alvarez had stopped her work as a cleaner in the neighborhood’s synagogues two weeks before her husband’s detention because of her pregnancy. The plan, she said, was to rely solely on his income as a maintenance worker for “the food, the rent, everything.” Left with few choices, Kimberley had to rely on her mother’s income as a cleaner. The older woman had moved to New York from North Carolina to assist with Alvarez’s pregnancy. “I feel like I’m supposed to help my mom, not the other way around,” Alvarez said. “I felt powerless because I couldn’t do anything.”On Dec. 9, Alvarez gave birth to a daughter, Evangeline. While her baby was healthy, Alvarez’s anxieties did not go away. While she returned to cleaning synagogues a few months after Evangeline’s birth to help make ends meet, Alvarez and her daughter rarely left home. Alvarez said she felt paralyzed, getting frequent alerts from a neighborhood WhatsApp group when ICE was spotted nearby. One day, she said, ICE arrested her friend’s husband in Sunset Park, in an area where she would sometimes take Evangeline for walks.“I’m so afraid that I’ll go out and run into one of them and that they’ll take her away from me,” Alvarez said. “That’s my biggest fear, that someone will take her away from me and I won’t know where my daughter is.”In March, her husband decided to voluntarily remove himself from the United States and move back to Colombia, where he is originally from. It was a family decision, but it was not a happy one — hiring immigration lawyers was too expensive, Alvarez said, adding that staying in the U.S. felt too uncertain. 
