Ohio Administrative Code Title 011 - Apportionment Board
📌 Overview of Title 011 - Apportionment Board (Ohio Administrative Code)
Purpose:
Title 011 of the OAC provided the procedural framework for the Apportionment Board, including how it was formed, how it operated, how public hearings were held, and how decisions about legislative redistricting were made.
🔹 Historical Context
Before 2015, the Ohio Apportionment Board was the constitutionally authorized body under Article XI of the Ohio Constitution responsible for redrawing state legislative districts every ten years based on census data.
🏛️ Composition of the Board (Pre-2015)
The board typically consisted of five members:
Governor of Ohio
State Auditor
Secretary of State
One member selected by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President
One member selected by the Minority Leaders of the House and Senate
🔹 Authority and Rules in the OAC Title 011
Title 011 of the OAC governed aspects such as:
Meeting procedures
Recordkeeping
Public hearing requirements
Adoption and filing of apportionment plans
Transparency and accessibility
This Title ensured that redistricting was not done arbitrarily but followed administrative and procedural safeguards, including timelines and requirements for public input.
🔹 2015 Constitutional Reform – From Apportionment Board to Ohio Redistricting Commission
In 2015, Ohio voters approved State Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that abolished the old Apportionment Board and replaced it with the Ohio Redistricting Commission.
Thus, Title 011 of the OAC became largely obsolete, and the Redistricting Commission is now governed primarily under the Ohio Constitution (revised Article XI) and new administrative rules.
🔹 Legal Cases Involving the Apportionment Board
Here are some notable case laws related to the Apportionment Board:
1. Wilson v. Kasich (2012)
Citation: 134 Ohio St.3d 221 (2012)
Issue: Challenge to the 2011 apportionment map drawn by the Apportionment Board.
Claim: The plaintiffs (Democratic state lawmakers and voters) alleged that the new map violated Article XI, Section 3(C) of the Ohio Constitution, which requires that districts not unduly favor one political party.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the map but expressed concern over partisan gerrymandering. The Court noted that while the plan was legal under the letter of the law, it was contrary to the spirit of fair representation.
Significance: Highlighted limitations of the Apportionment Board structure in ensuring fair representation. Contributed to the movement toward reform.
2. League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (2022)
Note: This case involved the successor body, not the Apportionment Board, but is relevant for understanding the legacy and legal evolution post-Apportionment Board.
Issue: Challenges to the legislative maps drawn by the new Ohio Redistricting Commission, claiming they violated the anti-gerrymandering provisions of Article XI.
Outcome: The Ohio Supreme Court rejected several maps proposed by the Commission and ordered redraws.
Significance: Showed the ongoing legal importance of fair apportionment and the impact of the reforms that replaced the Apportionment Board.
🔹 Summary of the Apportionment Board's Legacy
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Established by | Article XI of the Ohio Constitution |
| Governing Rules | Title 011 of the Ohio Administrative Code |
| Primary Function | Drawing state legislative districts every 10 years |
| Issues Faced | Accusations of partisan gerrymandering |
| Replaced By | Ohio Redistricting Commission (2015 constitutional amendment) |
🧾 Final Notes
Title 011 of the OAC provided operational details but did not have independent authority—it operated under constitutional directives.
The shift away from the Apportionment Board was in response to public concern over fairness, transparency, and partisanship in redistricting.
RELATED Blog
0 comments