Difference between revisions of "Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - 'ategory:Initiative rights' to 'ategory:Direct democracy measures')
(25 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters''' is the  name of a lawsuit that was filed on April 1, 2005 in the United States District Court for Ohio seeking to overturn a new Ohio law that forbade paying petitioners by the signature. In her ruling on the case, issued on November 27, 2006, United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott found that [[Ohio Initiative and Referendum Law|Ohio's law]] was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and enjoined the state from enforcing it.
+
{{law}}{{tnr}}'''Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters''' is a court case filed on April 1, 2005 in the United States District Court for Ohio seeking to overturn a [[Ohio]] law (ORC 3599.111) that had gone into effect on March 31, 2005.  ORC 3599.111 forbade [[pay-per-signature|paying petitioners by the signature]].<ref>[http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3599.111 Ohio Revised Code 3599.111, the law challenged in this lawsuit]</ref> In her ruling on the case, issued on November 27, 2006, United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott found that [[Ohio Initiative and Referendum Law|Ohio's law]] was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and enjoined the state from enforcing it. Dlott's decision was appealed by the [[Ohio Secretary of State]] to the [[Judgepedia:United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]].
 +
 
 +
On March 5, 2008, a three judge panel of the [[Judgepedia:United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]] upheld the district court ruling to strike Ohio's law banning per-signature payments. On August 1, the Ohio Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision.  On November 17, the United States Supreme Court announced that it was declining to hear Ohio's appeal.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/05/ohio-asks-us-supreme-court-to-reverse-decision-on-paying-circulators-per-signature/ ''Ohio Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Reverse Decision on Paying Circulators per Signature'', August 5, 2008]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/17/us-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-ohios-appeal-on-paying-signatures-per-signature/ ''Ballot Access News'', "U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Ohio’s Appeal on Paying Circulators per Signature", November 17, 2008]</ref> According to ballot access expert Richard Winger:
 +
:" In the 40 years that the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in ballot access, this is only the eighth time that the Court has refused to hear a ballot access appeal brought by a state. The Court generally treats state governments better than it treats ordinary litigants. The Court only takes 2% of the cases presented to it. However, states have a 50% success rate when they ask the Court to take a ballot access case."
  
 
The defendants in the case, Joseph Deters and Matthias Heck, were named in their official capacities as enforcers of the law. Deters was the prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Ohio and Heck was the prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County, Ohio.  
 
The defendants in the case, Joseph Deters and Matthias Heck, were named in their official capacities as enforcers of the law. Deters was the prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Ohio and Heck was the prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County, Ohio.  
  
In the Court’s decision, Judge Dlott relied on evidence presented by professional signature-gathering companies that indicated a prohibition on “per-signature” compensation would increase the costs and the time associated with obtaining the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. The Court also found that the State’s evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish the fraud was caused by the method of payment to circulators. Thus, the Court held that the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents’ core political speech rights.<ref>[http://www.bricker.com/LegalServices/Practice/Govern/crt.asp ''Ohio Law Requiring Petition-Circulators be Paid
+
In the district court’s decision, Judge Dlott relied on evidence presented by professional signature-gathering companies that indicated a prohibition on “per-signature” compensation would increase the costs and the time associated with obtaining the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. The Court also found that the State’s evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish the fraud was caused by the method of payment to circulators. Thus, the Court held that the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents’ core political speech rights.<ref>[http://www.bricker.com/LegalServices/Practice/Govern/crt.asp ''Ohio Law Requiring Petition-Circulators be Paid on Flat-Fee Basis Found Unconstitutional'']</ref>
on Flat-Fee Basis Found Unconstitutional'']</ref>
+
  
On December 27, 2006, the State of Ohio appealed the federal trial court's decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.  
+
==Appeal==
 +
 
 +
On December 27, 2006, the State of Ohio appealed the federal trial court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District.  The hearing in the appeal was held on November 30, 2007 in front of Judges Julia Gibbons, David McKeague and Eugene Siler.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/12...per-signature/ ''6th Circuit hears case on paying petitioners per signature'']</ref>
 +
 
 +
According to [[Richard Winger]], Ohio has declared that if it loses its appeal to the 6th Circuit, it will ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
  
The case arose out of an attempt of [[Citizens for Tax Reform]], an Ohio political advocacy group, to quality a citizen [[initiative]] for the 2005 general election ballot in that state.  They contracted with [[Arno Political Consulting]], a professional [[petition drive]] management company to pay $1.70 per signature for 450,000 signatures.  This contract was entered into prior to the contested law taking effect.  Once the law took effect, the petition drive management company notified CTR that they could no longer collect signatures at the specified rate and that, indeed, they would require an additional $300,000 to complete the drive.
+
The case arose out of an attempt of [[Citizens for Tax Reform]], an Ohio political advocacy group, to quality a citizen [[initiative]] for the 2005 general election ballot in that state.  They contracted with [[Arno Political Consultants]], a professional [[petition drive]] management company to pay $1.70 per signature for 450,000 signatures.  This contract was entered into prior to the contested law taking effect.  Once the law took effect, the petition drive management company notified CTR that they could no longer collect signatures at the specified rate and that, indeed, they would require an additional $300,000 to complete the drive.
  
 
On March 19, 2005, Judge Sandra Beckwith issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the state of Ohio, enjoining the enforcement of the state's ban on payment-per-signature.  The TRO was extended multiple times, until the hearing before Judge Dlott, at which time Dlott invalidated Ohio's law as unconstitutional.   
 
On March 19, 2005, Judge Sandra Beckwith issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the state of Ohio, enjoining the enforcement of the state's ban on payment-per-signature.  The TRO was extended multiple times, until the hearing before Judge Dlott, at which time Dlott invalidated Ohio's law as unconstitutional.   
  
===Testimony from petition drive managers===
+
===Petition drive managers===
  
 
In the trial, [[Mike Arno]] testified that he would need to charge CTR considerably more on a time-and-materials basis with the law in effect than he would need to charge if the law were not in effect.
 
In the trial, [[Mike Arno]] testified that he would need to charge CTR considerably more on a time-and-materials basis with the law in effect than he would need to charge if the law were not in effect.
Line 20: Line 26:
 
[[Lee Albright]] of [[National Petition Management]] estimated in testimony at the trial that if he ran the petition drive, it would cost 60% more than without the law.  
 
[[Lee Albright]] of [[National Petition Management]] estimated in testimony at the trial that if he ran the petition drive, it would cost 60% more than without the law.  
  
===Government case relies on previous instances of fraud===
+
===Government case===
  
 
In unsuccessfully making its case, the government of Ohio relied on evidence of fraud from the 2004 [[petition drive]] that took place in Ohio to qualify [[Ralph Nader]] for the ballot.  Judge Dlott criticized this evidence as not proving that the fraud was caused by the method of paying circulators by the signature.
 
In unsuccessfully making its case, the government of Ohio relied on evidence of fraud from the 2004 [[petition drive]] that took place in Ohio to qualify [[Ralph Nader]] for the ballot.  Judge Dlott criticized this evidence as not proving that the fraud was caused by the method of paying circulators by the signature.
Line 36: Line 42:
  
 
*[http://www.bricker.com/LegalServices/Practice/Govern/ctr.pdf Full text of the decision]
 
*[http://www.bricker.com/LegalServices/Practice/Govern/ctr.pdf Full text of the decision]
 +
*[http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0104p-06.pdf Full text of appeal's court decision]
 +
*[http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/05/29/ohio-legal-news/ Ohio legal news]
 +
 +
==References==
  
==Notes==
+
{{reflist}}
<references/>
+
  
[[Category:Ohio]]
+
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits, Ohio]]
[[Category:Ballot access legal cases]]
+
[[Category:Direct democracy measures, Ohio]]
 +
[[Category:Pay-per-signature lawsuits]]
 +
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits, 2005]]
 +
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits in federal court]]

Revision as of 09:16, 29 August 2011

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters is a court case filed on April 1, 2005 in the United States District Court for Ohio seeking to overturn a Ohio law (ORC 3599.111) that had gone into effect on March 31, 2005. ORC 3599.111 forbade paying petitioners by the signature.[1] In her ruling on the case, issued on November 27, 2006, United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott found that Ohio's law was an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and enjoined the state from enforcing it. Dlott's decision was appealed by the Ohio Secretary of State to the Sixth Circuit.

On March 5, 2008, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling to strike Ohio's law banning per-signature payments. On August 1, the Ohio Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision. On November 17, the United States Supreme Court announced that it was declining to hear Ohio's appeal.[2],[3] According to ballot access expert Richard Winger:

" In the 40 years that the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in ballot access, this is only the eighth time that the Court has refused to hear a ballot access appeal brought by a state. The Court generally treats state governments better than it treats ordinary litigants. The Court only takes 2% of the cases presented to it. However, states have a 50% success rate when they ask the Court to take a ballot access case."

The defendants in the case, Joseph Deters and Matthias Heck, were named in their official capacities as enforcers of the law. Deters was the prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Ohio and Heck was the prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County, Ohio.

In the district court’s decision, Judge Dlott relied on evidence presented by professional signature-gathering companies that indicated a prohibition on “per-signature” compensation would increase the costs and the time associated with obtaining the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. The Court also found that the State’s evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish the fraud was caused by the method of payment to circulators. Thus, the Court held that the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents’ core political speech rights.[4]

Appeal

On December 27, 2006, the State of Ohio appealed the federal trial court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District. The hearing in the appeal was held on November 30, 2007 in front of Judges Julia Gibbons, David McKeague and Eugene Siler.[5]

According to Richard Winger, Ohio has declared that if it loses its appeal to the 6th Circuit, it will ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Background

The case arose out of an attempt of Citizens for Tax Reform, an Ohio political advocacy group, to quality a citizen initiative for the 2005 general election ballot in that state. They contracted with Arno Political Consultants, a professional petition drive management company to pay $1.70 per signature for 450,000 signatures. This contract was entered into prior to the contested law taking effect. Once the law took effect, the petition drive management company notified CTR that they could no longer collect signatures at the specified rate and that, indeed, they would require an additional $300,000 to complete the drive.

On March 19, 2005, Judge Sandra Beckwith issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the state of Ohio, enjoining the enforcement of the state's ban on payment-per-signature. The TRO was extended multiple times, until the hearing before Judge Dlott, at which time Dlott invalidated Ohio's law as unconstitutional.

Petition drive managers

In the trial, Mike Arno testified that he would need to charge CTR considerably more on a time-and-materials basis with the law in effect than he would need to charge if the law were not in effect.

Lee Albright of National Petition Management estimated in testimony at the trial that if he ran the petition drive, it would cost 60% more than without the law.

Government case

In unsuccessfully making its case, the government of Ohio relied on evidence of fraud from the 2004 petition drive that took place in Ohio to qualify Ralph Nader for the ballot. Judge Dlott criticized this evidence as not proving that the fraud was caused by the method of paying circulators by the signature.

Judge Dlott also rejected the value of evidence presented in the case by John Lindback, the Director of the Election Division for the Oregon Secretary of State. Judge Dlott found that the materials presented by Lindback are "almost devoid of factual findings" and overall found that the Lindback exhibits "are not probative even to the extent that they are admissible".

See also

External links

References