COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Redistricting Commission filed its response Thursday morning to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the objections filed earlier in the week to the newly adopted legislative maps.

The five Republicans on the commission said the new maps they approved are in line with what the court asked the commission to do in redrawing the maps.

In its defense, the commission said the maps favor the Republican Party in 54% of Ohio House and Senate districts, which lines up with how Ohioans have voted over the last 10 years.

The plaintiffs and Democrats argue there are 26 Democratic-leaning districts that tilt their way by three points or fewer, and no Republican competitive districts.​

Democrats Vernon Sykes and Allison Russo said the Republican commissioners continue to resist following the law and are calling for the court to stop the maps from being used in the May 3 primary and to appoint a special master to help redraw the maps.

Plaintiffs have called for the justices to rule a set of maps drawn by a Stanford University professor constitutional favoring Republicans in 59% of Statehouse districts but would have fewer toss-up districts. If not, they said the court could move the process to federal courts or appoint an independent special master to work with the commission. The groups also say the court should find the commission in contempt of court and delay the May 3 primary.

Spectrum News 1 legal analyst Rory Riley-Topping said even if the court decides the maps are unconstitutional, it is not a sure thing the Democrats are going to get everything they want.

"Well, I think it's important to acknowledge that even if they side with Democrats, they don't necessarily have to implement the remedies that the Democrats have asked for in this situation," said Riley-Topping. "So if they say that they find that these maps are still unconstitutional because of these issues surrounding competitive districts, they can say redistricting commission, you have to go back and you have to do this again and reiterate the requirements that they are trying to meet."

She said she believes, due to the progress being made in the process, it is very unlikely the court would declare on set of maps unconstitutional and flip to the Democrats' presented maps and declare them consitutional and usable.

"They are making progress, even though it doesn't seem like that at times. So I think it's unlikely that if they decide these maps are unconstitutional, they would necessarily find some of these other maps that they've asked for that the Democrats have presented that those are constitutional," she said. "I think it's more likely that they would find a way to to go through the motions again." 

The General Assembly refuses to move back the May 3 primary and Secretary LaRose has said he wants a unified primary. 

On Wednesday, county boards of elections got a $9 million boost from the General Assembly for the primary.

The Ohio Association of Election Officials wrote a letter to Senate President Huffman Monday saying its "ability to administer a fair and accurate election has been compromised" because both redistricting processes are unresolved and "the result will likely be mistakes in the election."

​Meanwhile, LaRose has said the fate of legislative candidates on the May 3 primary ballot comes down to the court's decision.​

Auditor Keith Faber's office confirmed he did not submit a response to the legal objections. Faber voted against the maps because he felt they were gerrymandered to favor Democrats.

​A spokesperson for Faber said they "have reached out to counsel" when Spectrum News 1 asked why Faber didn't respond to the legal objections. 

His lack of response to the objections is not something Riley-Topping sees causing any legal issues for Faber.

"The only ramifications it has are that it detracts from Faber's argument. Obviously, he had the opportunity to present argument, but I think he's kind of between a rock and a hard place here because any argument that he would make would be that these maps are unconstitutional because that was his vote but he, I don't think, wants to go through this process again," she said. "And again, I think that his decision to to not file a response that doesn't have any legal ramifications required that he individually file a response. But if he wanted to give any substance in his argument, it's a missed opportunity for him."