COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday morning in two lawsuits surrounding the state's newly-passed congressional district map.

Voting rights groups argue Republicans in the General Assembly gerrymandered the four-year map they passed in November.

Relators and defendants will virtually voice their arguments for 30 minutes each to justices, because the oral argument session was not originally scheduled.

The first case involves a group of voters, represented by former Attorney General Eric Holder's National Redistricting Action Fund, who feel the new map unduly favors the Republican Party. They said Republicans cracked and packed minorities into white, Republican districts to get the result of 11 GOP-safe districts, two Democratic-safe districts, and two competitive districts that lean Republican.

In the second case, the League of Women Voters of Ohio said the new map violates the 2018 reform voters overwhelmingly passed and the new map is more gerrymandered than the one passed 10 years ago.

On the other side, Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, and Ohio House Speaker Robert Cupp, R-Lima, said the map is "the most balanced and politically fair congressional plan in recent Ohio history," because they said it creates six GOP-safe districts, two Democratic-safe districts, and seven competitive districts.

Spectrum News 1 Legal Analyst Rory Riley-Topping thinks the arguments are going to get heated. 

"The two sides, there's not a lot that they agree on,” said Riley-Topping. “A lot of times we have a case, there's at least a starting point where you could say, yes, we agree on these certain facts. Here, when you look at the briefing before the argument that's taking place tomorrow, there's not a lot of agreement between the parties. So again, I think this is a manifestation of the larger issue of partisanship that we're seeing [not just] across the country but particularly here in Ohio.”

Meanwhile, the governor, state auditor and Democrats on the Ohio Redistricting Commission were all removed from the lawsuits. However, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose is still a defendant. LaRose was a member of the commission, but the commission did not pass the map.

LaRose's involvement has to do with him being the top cop when it comes to elections in Ohio.

LaRose said he cannot speak to how the map was passed or the map itself because he obviously didn't help draw it. Yet, he does want the court to move this case along as fast as possible because candidates who want to run next year have to file by March 4 in order to be eligible for the May 3 primary.

Some people say the state should consider delaying the primary, but LaRose has said that is "entirely unnecessary.”

Riley-Topping said if the case on the state legislative maps is any sign, then the justices will act fast.​

​"There's so much that goes on behind the scenes in planning an election, not just you show up and vote on a particular day,” she said. “So there's so many people that I think want to see this resolved quickly, and the court certainly understands that. I think that they will have a tight timeframe in terms of when they will impose deadlines, when they will make a decision. And again, we saw a little bit of that with the other set of redistricting cases. I do think we will see that again here.”

It remains to be seen what the court decides and how fast it decides it. If the justices say the map is constitutional, Ohio would have a four-year congressional map and that is that. However, the court could rule against the lawmakers, throw the map out and legislators could start all over again.​​

Spectrum News will be following the hearing Tuesday and have an update once it concludes.