In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 253 Filed: 03/28/19 Page: 1 of 256 PAGEID #: 22284 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute, et al., Case No.: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB Plaintiffs, Judge Timothy S. Black Judge Karen Nelson Moore vs. Judge Michael H. Watson Larry Householder, Speaker of the Ohio Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz House of Representatives, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENORS’ JOINT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT In accordance with this Court’s March 14, 2019 Order Regarding Post-Trial Briefing (ECF No. 250), Defendants, Larry Householder, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Obhof, Jr., President of the Ohio Senate, and Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, all sued in their official capacities; and Intervenors, Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-01), Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH- 02), Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04), Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05), Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-06), Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH-07), Rep. Warren Davidson (OH-08), Rep. Michael Turner (OH-10), Rep. Dave Joyce (OH-14), Rep. Steve Stivers (OH-15), the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County (“RPCC”), the Franklin County Republican Party (“FCRP”), Robert F. Bodi, Charles Drake, Roy Palmer III, and Nathan Aichele, respectfully submit their joint Proposed Findings of Fact pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) from the trial held before this Court from March 4, 2019 to March 13, 2019. Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 253 Filed: 03/28/19 Page: 2 of 256 PAGEID #: 22285 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Redistricting in Ohio Following 2010 Census .................................................................... 1 A. The Legal and Procedural Landscape Applicable To Ohio’s 2011 Redistricting Process . 1 B. Ohio’s Redistricting Process In 2011 ................................................................................. 2 C. Legislative History of HB 319 .......................................................................................... 44 D. Referendum Threat And The Emergence Of HB 369 As A Bipartisan Compromise ...... 52 II. Ohio’s 2011 Plan And Election Returns Thereunder ....................................................... 70 III. Ohio’s Congressional Delegation Provides Effective Representation To All Ohioans .... 72 A. Ohio’s Congressional Delegation Provides Effective Representation To All Ohio Citizens. ........................................................................................................................................... 72 B. Republican members engage with their communities. ..................................................... 77 C. Republican members can share the same policy priorities as Democratic members. ...... 80 D. The Congressional Intervenors Had No Control Over The Shapes Of Their Districts. ... 84 E. In The Experience Of Ohio’s Congressional Delegation, “Political Indexes” Are Not The Sole Factor in Determining Whether A District Is Competitive. ...................................... 85 F. Each Congressional Member Has An Interest In Their District And The Redistricting Process. ............................................................................................................................. 86 IV. Expert Witnesses ............................................................................................................... 88 A. Plaintiff’s Expert – Dr. Wendy Tam Cho ......................................................................... 88 B. Plaintiff’s Expert – Dr. Christopher Warshaw ................................................................ 102 C. Plaintiff’s Expert – Dr. Lisa Handley ............................................................................. 121 D. Plaintiff’s Expert – Dr. John David Niven...................................................................... 128 E. Plaintiff’s Expert – Mr. William Cooper (In Main Case) ............................................... 137 F. Plaintiff’s Expert – Mr. William Cooper (In Rebuttal) ................................................... 140 G. Intervenors’ Expert – Dr. Thomas Brunell ..................................................................... 146 H. Defendants’ Expert – Dr. Janet Thornton ....................................................................... 177 I. Defendants’ Expert – Dr. M.V. Hood, III ....................................................................... 182 V. Plaintiffs Lack Standing And Rarely, If Ever, “Benefit” From The Proposed Remedial Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 190 A. Individual Plaintiffs/Fact Witnesses ............................................................................... 190 B. Organizational Plaintiffs ................................................................................................. 232 VI. Plaintiffs’ Delay In Bringing This Case Harmed Defendants ........................................ 248 Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 253 Filed: 03/28/19 Page: 3 of 256 PAGEID #: 22286 I. Redistricting in Ohio Following 2010 Census A. The Legal and Procedural Landscape Applicable To Ohio’s 2011 Redistricting Process 1. Under the United States Constitution and laws of the State of Ohio as they existed in 2011-2012, the Ohio General Assembly (the “General Assembly”) is the body responsible for enacting legislation that defines the boundaries for Ohio’s congressional districts. To become law, a congressional district plan must be approved by a majority of both the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio State Senate, and then signed into law by the Governor of Ohio. 2. To assist the General Assembly with its work in redistricting and reapportionment, the bipartisan Legislative Task Force on Redistricting, Reapportionment, and Demographic Research (the “Task Force”) was created by statute in the early 1990s. (Trial Transcript, Vol. V, ECF No. 243 (“5 Tr.” or “5Tr.”), at 147:19-21). 3. The Task Force is the entity to which the General Assembly appropriates money to facilitate the redistricting process in Ohio. (Trial Tr., Vol. V 148:14-15). Mr. Troy Judy, who served as the Chief of Staff to Speaker Bill Batchelder of the Ohio House of Representatives in 2011, described the Task Force as “an administrative statutory vehicle by which appropriations are made in order to spend money on behalf of the official work that is done with respect to the census and drawing both the state lines and the congressional lines.” (Trial Tr., Vol VI at 69:6- 11). 4. As a statutory requirement, the Task Force has bipartisan co-chairs that are empowered to make allocations on behalf of the Ohio Apportionment Board. (Trial Tr., Vol. V at 147:22-148:1, 149:9-10; see also Trial Tr., Vol. V at 154:13). 5. The Task Force does not draw or adopt any Ohio congressional districts. (Trial Tr., Vol. V 148:9-12). Instead, the Task Force works “behind the scenes” to help “allocate money to Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 253 Filed: 03/28/19 Page: 4 of 256 PAGEID #: 22287 the various caucuses, put the proper contracts in place, and basically prepare the state for [the redistricting] process.” (Trial Tr., Vol. V at 148:2-8). 6. In the last two election cycles, the Task Force “made allocations to the Republican caucuses and the Democratic caucuses in equal amounts so that they could do everything that the joint caucuses felt they needed to: Hiring staff, buying computer equipment, travel, mileage reimbursement, and those types of things.” (Trial Tr., Vol. V at 149:10-16) (emphasis added). (See also Trial Transcript, Vol. VI, ECF No. 246 (“6 Tr.” or “6Tr.”), at 69:12-17) (“[b]oth the Republicans and Democrats have an equal amount of money by which they can hire consultants, buy computers, rent software, in order to assist them in the task of reconfiguring districts.”) (emphasis added). 7. Mr. Raymond DiRossi, who serves as the Finance Director to the majority caucus of the Ohio Senate, testified that in his experience, once the Democratic and Republican caucuses receive the allocated money from the Task Force, they work independently to create a proposed map. (Trial Tr., Vol. V at 149:17-150:1, see also Trial Tr., Vol. V at 150:6-13). 8. In order to draft proposed maps, each caucus buys its own equipment and hires its own experts. (Trial Tr., Vol. V at 149:22-24). 9. The caucuses bring their draft proposed maps “back in the legislative process” so that the maps can be “turned into a bill,” which then goes through the traditional legislative process. (Trial Tr., Vol. V at 150:2-5, 11-13). B. Ohio’s Redistricting Process In 2011 a. The General Assembly Contracts with Cleveland State University in 2009 to Provide Census and “Political Data” to Both Parties to Aid in the 2011 Redistricting Process. 10. In August 2009, in advance of the 2011 redistricting cycle, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission entered into a database agreement with Cleveland State University (“CSU”). 2 Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 253 Filed: 03/28/19 Page: 5 of 256 PAGEID #: 22288 Dr. Mark Salling was the professor at CSU who did part of the work on the contract. (Blessing Dep. 46:10-13; 94:18-95:3; 147:16-19; 153:23-154:18.) 11. CSU contracted to provide the Task Force members a database, termed the Ohio Common Unified Redistricting Database, that included geographic, demographic, and extensive election return data for the state. (See I-116, 2010 Ohio Common and Unified Redistricting Database Technical Documentation, pp. 7-10; Deposition