With the Ohio Supreme Court ruling state legislative maps unconstitutional for the third time, Mahoning Valley election officials say a full primary election on May 3 is impossible.

“We have to wait and see if they want to do a split primary,” said Thomas McCabe, Mahoning County Board of Elections director. “They can either move everything back or do a split primary. Our preference is a single primary. I don’t foresee how we do a full May 3 primary.”

Stephanie Penrose, Trumbull County Board of Elections director, said: “Nothing is official, but it’s not possible. Not having new maps until March 29 and early voting is to start April 5, it’s not possible to do a May 3 primary. We’re in a holding pattern.”

The Trumbull board had the ballots programmed and ready but hadn’t printed them, she said.

“We’ve been dragging our feet on printing in anticipation of the rejection of the maps,” said Penrose, who added she wasn’t surprised by the court ruling.

A decision on moving any or all of the primary from May 3 to a later date is solely up to the state Legislature.

Before the Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision late Wednesday to reject the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s state legislative maps for a third time, legislative Democrats had sought to postpone the primary until late June. Republican legislators refused to change the date.

Now the Legislature will have to choose between a later primary or having one on May 3 for all other candidates besides those running for state legislative seats — and almost certainly for the U.S. House as that map is being challenged in the state’s high court over gerrymandering issues — or postponing it.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican member of the redistricting commission, has said having two primaries would cost $20 million to $25 million. The Legislature recently approved $9.2 million in additional money to boards of elections to prepare for the May 3 primary.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL MAPS

The court’s majority — which includes the three Democratic justices and Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican — ruled the third set of legislative maps unconstitutional because they disproportionately favored Republicans.

The court had ordered the commission, which has five Republican members and two Democrats, to draw maps that reflect the partisan statewide voting trends of the past decade. That would be 54 percent Republican to 46 percent Democratic.

The map approved Feb. 24 by a 4-3 vote — Auditor Keith Faber, a Republican, joined the two Democrats in opposition — reflected those percentages. But 26 of the districts were drawn to favor Democrats by no more than 3 percent and all of the Republican districts favor that party by at least 5 percent.

“The commission has again adopted a plan in which a disproportionate number of toss-up districts are labeled Democratic-leaning,” the court’s decision read.

“When the 26 so-called Democratic-leaning districts in that range are excluded, the second revised plan has 72 Republican districts and 34 Democratic districts for a total of 106 non-excluded districts,” the court’s decision read. “This gives Republicans a 67.9 percent share of the non-excluded districts (72 out of 106) and Democrats 32.1 percent (34 out of 106).”

The decision also said: “The existence of competitive districts is not inherently problematic. The gross and unnecessary disparity in the allocation of close districts is what offends.”

The court ordered the commission to draw and approve a fourth set of maps by March 28 and submit it to the court a day later.

“To promote transparency and increase public trust, the drafting should occur in public and the commissioners should convene frequent meetings to demonstrate their bipartisan efforts to reach a constitutional plan within the time set by the court,” the decision read.

The court’s majority also recommended the commission retain an independent map-drawer rather than retain the two selected by the Republicans to do the work.

The dissenting opinion by the three other Republican justices stated the majority’s decision “is an exercise of raw political power. Nothing less. Nothing more.”

Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican commission member, said Thursday he wants the two Republican map-drawers to work with the one hired by Democrats to come up with maps that follow the court’s decision and are constitutional.

“Whatever our personal opinions are about a decision is irrelevant frankly,” he said. “So we have to look at this decision and we have to follow it. What does that mean? I’m not sure, but one possibility would be to take the three mapmakers” and have the commission pass a resolution instructing them to “make their work accessible” to the seven members.

There isn’t enough time under the court’s schedule to hire an outside mapmaker, DeWine said.

RESPONSES

Also, DeWine, who has let House Speaker Bob Cupp and Senate President Matt Huffman, both Lima Republicans and commission members, make the key moves regarding the map, said that will stop.

“I’m taking the lead right now,” he said. “There has to be a consensus … I’m going to start the discussion right now.”

John Fortney, Huffman’s spokesman, said: “We’re reviewing the opinion and will determine the path forward.”

Allison Dumski, Faber’s spokeswoman, said: “We are reviewing the opinion.”

Rob Nichols, LaRose’s spokesman, said: “When we have something to say, we’ll say it to everyone.”

A spokesman for Cupp couldn’t be reached Thursday to comment.

State Sen. Vernon Sykes, an Akron Democrat and commission member, said: “We could have avoided the troubles we are now facing with the primary election if we had simply adopted fair, constitutional maps to begin with.”

Sykes said Thursday that he urged the members to “work together in a bipartisan, transparent manner to deliver the fair, constitutional maps Ohioans have demanded.”

House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington and a commission member, said: “For the third time, the Supreme court has ruled the majority party is not above the law and cannot blatantly disregard the will of Ohio voters and the Ohio Constitution. Democrats have a state legislative map proposed ready to go that is fair, constitutional and closely reflects the statewide voting preferences of Ohioans. Now, it is up to the Republican commissioners to work with us to adopt the fair maps Ohioans deserve.”

Jeniece Brock, policy and advocacy director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a Youngstown-based organization that sued over the constitutionality of the maps, said: “It’s undeniable that the commissioners must now abide by the rule of law instead of continuing to sow chaos.”

dskolnick@vindy.com