Wilson v. Kasich, No. 2012–0019.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation131 Ohio St.3d 249,963 N.E.2d 1282,2012 -Ohio- 612
Docket NumberNo. 2012–0019.
Decision Date17 February 2012
PartiesWILSON et al. v. KASICH, Governor, et al.

131 Ohio St.3d 249
2012 -Ohio- 612
963 N.E.2d 1282

WILSON et al.
v.
KASICH, Governor, et al.

No. 2012–0019.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2012.Decided Feb. 17, 2012.


[963 N.E.2d 1282]

Wesp/Barwell/Pierre–Louis Co., L.L.C., and Lloyd Pierre–Louis; Murray & Murray

[963 N.E.2d 1283]

Co., L.P.A., and Dennis E. Murray Jr., Sandusky; Perkins Coie, L.L.P., and Marc Erik Elias, Kevin J. Hamilton, Abha Khanna, and Noah Guzzo Purcell, for relators.

Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., John H. Burtch, Columbus, E. Mark Braden, Washington, DC, and Robert J. Tucker, Columbus, for respondents Governor John Kasich, Senate President Thomas E. Niehaus, and Auditor David Yost.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Pearl M. Chin, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Governor John Kasich.Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeannine R. Lesperance and Renata Staff, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Auditor David Yost.Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jeannine R. Lesperance and Sarah Pierce, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Senate President Thomas E. Niehaus.Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese, Michael J. Schuler, and Erin Butcher–Lyden, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State Jon Husted.PER CURIAM.

[Ohio St.3d 249] {¶ 1} This is an original action in which relators, 36 electors living in various districts for the Ohio House of Representatives as reapportioned by the Ohio Apportionment Board on September 30, 2011, seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief against respondents, the four Republican members of the five-member Ohio Apportionment Board—a declaration that the apportionment plan adopted by the board is invalid because the board failed to comply with Article XI of the Ohio Constitution, which governs the decennial apportionment of districts in the General Assembly, and the Open Meetings Law, R.C. 121.22, and a prohibitory injunction preventing these board members from calling, holding, supervising, administering, or certifying any elections under their apportionment plan.

Jurisdiction

{¶ 2} Relators claim that this court has original jurisdiction over their claims pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 13, which specifies that “[t]he supreme court of Ohio shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under this Article.” (Emphasis added.)

{¶ 3} Relators' open-meetings claim, however, does not arise under Article XI; instead, it arises under R.C. 121.22. Nor do relators assert that they are invoking the court's original jurisdiction under Article IV, Section 2(B)(1). Instead, they specifically deny that they are. And without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Wilson v. Kasich, No. 2012–0019.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 27, 2012
    ...based on laches insofar as they attempted to challenge the use of the apportionment plan for the 2012 election cycle. Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 8 (O'Donnell, J., dissenting in part) (urging that the court has an obligation to review apportionmen......
  • Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Smith, No. 1:18cv357
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • August 15, 2018
    ...between the doctrine of laches as applied by the Sixth Circuit and the Ohio Supreme Court in cases such as this. See Wilson v. Kasich , 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 963 N.E.2d 1282, 1284 (2012) (declining to apply laches to bar parties' suit against an apportionment plan that was to be used in futur......
  • Neiman v. LaRose, 2022-0298
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 29, 2022
    ...general elections, it is too late for this court to enter any order that would affect the 2022 election cycle. See Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 8 ("Wilson I") (denying attack on decennial apportionment plan "based on laches insofar a......
  • Redistricting by Formula: An Ohio Reform Experiment
    • United States
    • American Politics Research Nbr. 46-1, January 2018
    • January 1, 2018
    ...Following the rules and limiting gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting. Lexington Books. Lanham, MD. Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St. 3d 249, 2012 Ohio 612 (2012).Author BiographiesMicah Altman is director of research and head/scientist, Program on Information Science for the MIT ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Wilson v. Kasich, No. 2012–0019.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • November 27, 2012
    ...based on laches insofar as they attempted to challenge the use of the apportionment plan for the 2012 election cycle. Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 8 (O'Donnell, J., dissenting in part) (urging that the court has an obligation to review apportionmen......
  • Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Smith, No. 1:18cv357
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • August 15, 2018
    ...between the doctrine of laches as applied by the Sixth Circuit and the Ohio Supreme Court in cases such as this. See Wilson v. Kasich , 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 963 N.E.2d 1282, 1284 (2012) (declining to apply laches to bar parties' suit against an apportionment plan that was to be used in futur......
  • Neiman v. LaRose, 2022-0298
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • March 29, 2022
    ...general elections, it is too late for this court to enter any order that would affect the 2022 election cycle. See Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 8 ("Wilson I") (denying attack on decennial apportionment plan "based on laches insofar a......
  • Bishop v. Citizens for Lake Twp. Police (In re Contest of Election Held on Stark Cnty. Issue 6 (Lake Twp. Police District) in Gen. Election Held November 8), Nos. 2012–0184
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • May 16, 2012
    ...or estoppel. E.g., id. at 476, 124 N.E.2d 120. Third, both laches and equitable estoppel are doctrines of equity. Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 7 (“laches is an equitable doctrine”). The uncontroverted evidence is that the secretary of state's offic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Redistricting by Formula: An Ohio Reform Experiment
    • United States
    • American Politics Research Nbr. 46-1, January 2018
    • January 1, 2018
    ...Following the rules and limiting gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting. Lexington Books. Lanham, MD. Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St. 3d 249, 2012 Ohio 612 (2012).Author BiographiesMicah Altman is director of research and head/scientist, Program on Information Science for the MIT ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT