A three-member federal judicial panel dismissed a case brought by three black Youngstown residents who sued to invalidate Ohio’s congressional map contending it disenfranchised black voters, particularly in the Mahoning Valley.

The judicial panel rejected requests for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and partial summary judgment to stop the certification of the June 11 special election in the 6th Congressional District that resulted in Republican Michael Rulli winning and representing that district. Those results were certified last Thursday.

The plaintiffs are the Rev. Kenneth Simon, senior pastor of New Bethel Baptist Church; the Rev. Lewis W. Macklin II, lead pastor of Holy Trinity Missionary Baptist Church; and Helen Youngblood, a former labor leader who is chairwoman of the Mahoning Valley 1619 Project.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the state’s congressional map violates the Voters Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution’s 1st, 14th and 15th Amendments.

The Youngstown residents contend the boundaries of the 6th District needed to be redrawn because the state’s congressional map approved by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in 2022 disenfranchised black voters in the Mahoning Valley by splitting Youngstown and Warren — where a majority of the area’s black voters reside — and put both in predominantly white districts.

If the 6th District’s boundaries were changed, most or all of the state’s 14 other congressional districts would have to be adjusted.

In rejecting the argument that the map violates the Voters Rights Act, the judicial panel wrote that a court precedent requires a proposed district to have a black majority.

“That is fatal to their claim,” the decision reads.

The plaintiffs said the case is about nominating rather than electing a candidate of choice.

“The relabeling does not help,” the decision reads.

Responding to the dismissal, Percy Squire, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said, “The court’s opinion focuses on whether plaintiffs have brought a claim that the 6th Congressional District lines as drawn impair the black community’s ability to influence the outcome of a general election or whether the black community can, with the assistance of white crossover voters, prevail in a general election. The court spent 17 pages analyzing the influence and crossover theories, neither of which was the basis for plaintiffs’ claim. The court decided the issue they wanted to decide rather than the issue advanced by plaintiffs.”

The court dismissed the 14th Amendment violation claim because the plaintiffs lack standing.

It rejected the 1st Amendment violation claim because a partisan gerrymandering doesn’t restrict their right to free speech.

It rejected the 15th Amendment violation claim of “intentional racial discrimination” because the judges stated “it is not clear whether plaintiffs mean to assert a voter-dilution claim or a racial-gerrymandering claim.”

It added: “Regardless, the plaintiffs’ claim fails on its own terms. Plaintiffs assert that defendants enacted the redistricting plan with the intent to deny them the right to vote on account of race. But that conclusory assertion is at odds with the plaintiffs’ factual allegations” that the state intentionally ignored race when drawing the congressional map.

Squire said: “The (Ohio) Redistricting Commission knew exactly where black voters are located and drew lines to minimize black voting strength because they labor under the erroneous belief that blacks always vote Democratic.”

The Republican officeholders who were the defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss the case and oppose the requests for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and partial summary judgment.

Julie M. Pfeiffer, an assistant Ohio attorney general representing the state Republican officials in this case, wrote if there was any change to the June 11 special election in the 6th District, it would “be manifestly unfair to Ohio voters and candidates and would destroy public confidence in the integrity of Ohio elections.”

In addition to the ORC, other defendants in the case are Gov. Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Auditor Keith Faber, Senate President Matt Huffman and House Speaker Jason Stephens. The first four were members of the ORC who voted to approve the unconstitutional maps along with Bob Cupp, who was House speaker at the time.

Squire said any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

New congressional lines are to be drawn for the 2026 election. Also, there is a constitutional amendment that could appear on this year’s general election ballot that could change how the lines are drawn, putting that in control of a citizens’ committee.

Squire said he was concerned about an appeal to the Supreme Court because it could give that court – which consists of six Republicans and three Democrats – an opportunity “to further erode the Voting Rights Act.”

The decision is up to the plaintiffs, he said, but “my view is it’s prudent to keep our powder dry for the time being and see what the lines look like for 2026. If Youngstown and Warren are not placed in the same congressional district at that time then we should litigate against whatever body is responsible for that outcome.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th District ruled April 9 that U.S. District Court Judge John R. Adams erred in 2022 when he dismissed the case from the three Youngstown residents contending the VRA and the U.S. Constitution weren’t violated. The appeals court ordered a three-judge panel hear the matter.

Hearing the case were Adams, U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver and Judge Joan L. Larsen of the 6th District Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit contended that putting Youngstown voters “into a racially polarized voting block of voters located in several racially polarized counties south of Mahoning County and stretching over 165 miles” violates the VRA and the U.S. Constitution.

All of Trumbull County, where Warren is located, was put into the 14th Congressional District, which is also overwhelmingly white.

Large portions of Mahoning and Trumbull – and sometimes the entirety of the two – were in the same congressional district for decades.

The Ohio Supreme Court twice in 2022 found the commission’s congressional map to be unconstitutional, but the second ruling came after that year’s primary. Those who successfully sued in 2022 over the two unconstitutional congressional maps didn’t appeal the existing boundaries for this year’s election because Democrats did better than expected in the 2022 election – winning five of the state’s 15 congressional seats.

Have an interesting story? Contact David Skolnick by email at dskolnick@vindy.com. Follow him on X, formerly Twitter, @dskolnick.