The attorney for the Ohio Redistricting Commission and five top state Republicans urged a federal judicial panel that dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Youngstown residents seeking to invalidate the state’s congressional map to not consider a request to “alter or amend” its decision.

The three black Youngstown residents asked the panel July 5 to “alter or amend” its July 1 decision to dismiss the case, which contends the congressional map disenfranchises black voters, particularly in the Mahoning Valley.

The judicial panel hasn’t ruled on the request as of Monday.

In its July 1 decision, the court rejected the argument of the Youngstown residents that the map violates Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, stating precedent requires a proposed district must have a black majority to nominate a candidate.

“That is fatal to their claim,” the 3-0 decision states.

In the July 5 request, Percy Squire, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said the decision “contains a clear error of law concerning” the interpretation of the act and “violates well-settled rules of statutory construction which requires courts to give effect to all words in a statute.”

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

“The relabeling does not help,” the court decision states.

Julie M. Pfeiffer, an assistant Ohio attorney general and attorney for the defendants, wrote in a Friday court filing the judicial panel “properly applied binding precedent and correctly concluded plaintiffs’ claim under (Section) 2 of the Voting Rights Act fails as a matter of law. Unsatisfied with that outcome, plaintiffs now move the panel to reconsider its order.”

She added, “Their rehashed argument has been twice rejected already and nothing in their latest motion changes the calculus. Their motion should be denied.”

Pfeiffer wrote the “plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that their proposed district would result in a black majority voting bloc” and a precedent “requires them to do so to state a valid” Section 2 of the act claim.

In addition to the redistricting commission, 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 commission who voted to approve the congressional map used in the 2022 election and is being used in the 2024 election along with Bob Cupp, who was House speaker at the time.

The defendants filed a May 17 motion to dismiss the case and oppose the requests for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and partial summary judgment.

The three-member panel sided with the commission and Republican officials July 1.

Pfeiffer had argued that “as a matter of law, no private right of action exists for claims” under Section 2 of the act. The judicial panel instead rejected the plaintiffs’ argument for containing “a clear error of law” because no district drawn to include Mahoning and Trumbull counties would have a black majority.

In Squire’s July 5 motion, he wrote, “It is respectfully requested the July 1 order be vacated to the extent it ignores settled rules of statutory construction and portends further erosion of the protection provided by the VRA because it states the inability (by a black majority) to nominate a candidate alone is not of (Section) 2 significance, despite the absence of any judicial authority for that proposition and express language in the VRA to the contrary.”

The plaintiffs sought to stop the certification of the June 11 special election in the 6th Congressional District that resulted in Republican Michael Rulli winning and representing the district. Those results were certified June 27.

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 on July 1 also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the state’s congressional map violates the U.S. Constitution’s 1st, 14th and 15th Amendments.

The Youngstown residents contend the boundaries of the 11-county 6th District needed to be redrawn because the state’s congressional map approved by the 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.

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.

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 Youngstown residents contending the act and the U.S. Constitution weren’t violated. The appeals court ordered a three-judge panel hear the matter.

Hearing and dismissing 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 act 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.

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