Blog

In a just-released opinion in an expedited matter relating to an upcoming election, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 6-0 late this afternoon that the Council of City of Maple Heights, Ohio must “act immediately to approve an ordinance placing” on the ballot a Charter Amendment limiting the use of Red Light and Speeding Cameras in that City.

The Finney Law Firm, in an action led by attorneys Curt Hartman and Chris Finney, had first warned the City in a “taxpayer letter” that a suit would ensue, and then (upon the failure to act by the City attorney) filed suit to assure that the citizens group that collected sufficient signatures on their petition achieved ballot access for their Charter Amendment.

The Finney Law Firm guided the ballot issue from drafting, to submission to the Clerk of Council, and through the processes of the Board of Elections.  But the City Council and its law director refused to take the final step — a formal vote of the Council to place the issue on the ballot.  This step is a mandatory — not discretionary — act by the Council, and the Ohio Constitution requires them to do it “forthwith,” i.e., immediately.

Their “excuse” was that they had to refer the matter to a Council Committee, and then hold three readings, taking months and months of time.  The Supreme Court was not amused.

The decision by the Ohio Supreme Court today is the continuation of a long line of cases firmly enforcing the Constitutional provisions allowing ballot access by petition of Charter Amendments.

You may read the decision here.

Finney Law Firm is proud to have “made a difference” for these citizen volunteers seeing to change their City through a Charter Amendment.

We have witnessed over the years various schemes that nibble around the edges of the unauthorized practice of law, and even those that stray over the line, but rarely something as brazen as this:

After a 2008 “cease and desist” warning from the Ohio Supreme Court, this defendant (not a licensed attorney) and his company continued to “file collection actions on behalf of his clients in municipal and common pleas courts,” including personally signing the Complaints.

That’s not nibbling around the edges, that’s thumbing your nose at the law and then poking a stick in the eye of the Court on top of it– 118 times.

The result?  A fine from the Court in the amount of $280,000.  That’s a lot of unauthorized legal fees.

Read about it here on the Legal Ethics blog of Kegler, Hill, Ritter + Brown.

September 17th is Constitution Day, the day our nation celebrates that great document.

Our firm defends that the Constitution in the Courts, and we are proud to join in honoring it and the men and women who have participated in writing it!

In a battle that has taken nearly four years, including a trip to the United States Supreme Court, Finney Law Firm is pleased that today Judge Timothy S. Black granted the motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction and permanently enjoined the enforcement of Ohio’s Orwellian Political Speech regulations.

We are deeply appreciative of the work of Michael Carvin and his team at Jones Day who provided counsel to the co-plaintiff SBA List.

The Judge’s Order is below.

Order Granting SBA List and COAST’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Preliminary Injunction by Finney Law Firm, LLC

The COAST blog has a good summation of yesterday’s oral argument on the SBA List case against the Ohio Elections Commission.

We hope to have favorable decision within 10 days.

Today, Enquirer reporter Amber Hunt does an excellent job of explaining the somewhat complex substance and procedural posture of the arguments today before Federal District Court Judge Timothy Black in Susan B. Anthony List. v. Ohio Elections Commission in this article.

This afternoon, a true constitutional showdown is occurring at 2:30 PM before Judge Timothy Black.  If this sort of thing interests you, it will make excellent theater.  On one side is preeminent Constitutional barrister and frequent Supreme Court advocate, Michael A. Carvin of Jones Day in D.C.  On the other side is Eric Murphy, Solicitor of the State of Ohio.  Finally, representing the other Plaintiff, COAST, is Finney Law Firm attorney and founder Chris Finney.

After four solid years of litigating this issue, we are now hopeful that Judge Black will enjoin the enforcement of the unconstitutional statute, and end the Ohio Election Commission’s harassment of those who choose to engage in political speech.

Come on down for a listen if you are so inclined.  If not, we will report on the results.

The timing could not have been better.  On the eve of our Motions for Summary Judgment hearing before Federal District Court Judge Timothy Black on the SBA List case, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals today released its decision on remarkably parallel litigation challenging a similar statute in Minnesota.

It addresses and dispenses with every single defense raised by the Ohio Elections Commission in the Ohio case, and a few more.

It is exceedingly well-reasoned and well-written.  This Court of Appeals clearly understands the First Amendment.

Read it here.

One would expect that after a 9-0 victory at the US Supreme Court, a case finally would be “over,” but that’s not always the case.

In SBA List and COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission such is the posture of the litigation.  The Supreme Court ruling merely ended the procedural skirmish over the question of whether the Plaintiffs has standing to even be in court to challenge the law that criminalizes political speech in Ohio.  After four years working through the Courts, that question finally was answered in the affirmative.

Now we are back before the Federal District Court judge, Timothy Black on the merits of the case — is Ohio’s “False Claims” statute constitutional.  Our client, COAST, along with the Susan B. Anthony List, maintains that it is not.

That topic quickly has become the subject of cross motions for summary judgment.  The matter has been fully briefed and is now the subject of oral argument before Judge Black this Thursday, September 4th at 2:30 PM on both those MSJ motions, and alternately Plaintiff’s motion for Preliminary Injunction.

It is our hope and expectation that Judge Black will rule on one or both of those motions quickly so that all Ohio candidates and the public can proceed in the Fall elections knowing if they are subject to Ohio’s statute regulating electoral conduct.

We will keep you advised as to progress.