Author Archives: Christopher P. Finney

Just shy of four years since this legal battle began, lawyers from Cincinnati, Columbus and Washington, D.C. will descend upon the courtroom of Judge Timothy Black to argue cross motions for summary judgment in SBA List and COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission.  The Finney Law Firm represents COAST in this action.

Until June of this year, the parties were wrestling solely over the issue of whether the plaintiffs even had standing to sue.  That issue, and a companion case from 2011 involving the same client group, were resolved in June of this year by the US Supreme Court in two 9-0 decisions in our clients’ favor.  You may read about those victories here.

Those decisions thus returned the cases back to the District Court for either trial or summary adjudication.  The first of those to advance is before Judge Timothy Black, and this Thursday, he holds a hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by both Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs’ motions were filed in anticipation that the unconstitutional law — making criminal claimed false political statements and empowering an Ohio “Ministry of Truth” (consisting of non-judges and non-attorneys) to decide truth and falsity — will be enjoined before this fall’s election

Thus, we expect — or are at least hopeful for — quick resolution of the motions by Judge Black.

A citizens group in Maple Heights, Ohio organized this year to place on the ballot a Charter Amendment to ban red light and speeding cameras in their City.  In doing so, they sought the assistance of the Finney Law Firm to draft their petition and in early August submitted the petitions with the requisite number of signatures to the City Council.  The right to place the issue on the ballot is set forth in the Ohio Constitution.

The City Law Director responded to that petition and a subsequent taxpayer demand letter from the petitioners by refusing to either place the issue on the ballot, or even submit the question to a vote of the Council.  Indeed, his response letter was dripping with condescension aimed towards these citizens simply exercising their rights under the Ohio Constitution.

As a result, our firm was retained and this past week we filed suit, requesting a writ of mandamus, with the Ohio Supreme Court.  Copies of the Complaint and Memorandum in Support are linked here and here.

We will keep our readers advised as to the outcome of that litigation.

Our firm represents a group of citizens from the City of Maple Heights, Ohio who petitioned their City Council pursuant to the Ohio Constitution to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot this fall essentially banning Red Light Cameras and Speeding Cameras.

These folks simply exercised a specific procedure in the Ohio Constitution allowing for a public vote on the measure, and inclusion (if successful) in the governing document of the City.  Essentially, they wanted to take the decision on red light and speeding cameras away from their elected officials.

The City Law Director made it clear when the Finney Law Firm called a few weeks ago to arrange an orderly turn-in of the petitions that he had no intention of placing the issue before the voters.

Today, we received correspondence affirming that position.  Read it here.

We will be suing next week.  Please follow along.  The drama is exciting.

Our firm pro bono assisted a citizens group in the City of Maple Heights, Ohio in drafting, circulating and submitting petitions for a Charter Amendment banning Red Light Cameras in their fair City.

But when we called the City Law Director and informed him that we wanted to arrange an orderly submission of the signatures, he made it clear he had no intention of instructing the City Council to fulfill its constitutional duties and place the issue on the ballot. Rather, he intended to develop some rationale to obstruct it rising to a vote.

Fortunately, Ohio law provides the petitioners with a legal vehicle to force Council action.

Attached is the taxpayer demand letter aimed at forcing the issue, here and here.

We intend to bring suit next week.

We continue the litigation fighting to strike down as unconstitutional the Ohio statute empowering a Ministry of Truth and making it a crime to make a false statement during the course of an election campaign. The team we have on this case is one of the strongest group of First Amendment litigators assembled in the nation.

Read the reply briefs on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment here and here.

Oral argument on the Plaintiffs and the State’s cross motions for summary judgment will be heard before the Honorable Judge Timothy Black on Thursday, September 4, 2014 at 2:30 PM.