Irony in the GOP v. Brunner Legal Battle

Yesterday, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner filed two pleadings in the Ohio Supreme Court. The first was a notice of removal in which she notified the Ohio Supreme Court that she was asking the Federal District Court to take jurisdiction over the lawsuit filed by David Myhal. The second was her answer in the Ohio Supreme Court.

In Brunner's answer is the following, which is rich in irony:

"12. Respondent states that the Relator spelled his name differently in the caption of the complaint as compared to the rest of the complaint. One presumes that this is an innocent typographical error. Respondent, however, is unsure if the actual Relator in this case is "David Mahal" as listed in the caption or "David Myhal" as listed in the body of the complaint. Respondent denies for lack of knowledge the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint." (Italics in the original.)

It is the italicized part of paragraph 12 of Brunner's answer that is ironic. The GOP is trying to argue that the local Boards of Elections should be notified by Brunner of any mismatches in data with the BMV records or Social Security. Presumably the list of such voters would then be public record. The GOP could then get the names of such voters and use that information to engage in typical GOP voter suppression stuff. (That idea, by the way, isn't original with us. We got it from an article that appeared in AlterNet.)

One of the arguments that Brunner has used against the GOP's request is that a lot of errors in voter databases are unintentional and result not from voters giving inaccurate information, but from typographical and other errors made by Boards of Elections workers. So here we have a typographical error in a complaint filed by a very well known and well regarded Columbus law firm in the Ohio Supreme Court. Filed on behalf of a person who is claiming that mismatches between Ohio election data and data from Ohio's BMV or Social Security Administration could be nefarious. We can only imagine the glee it gave Brunner's attorneys to make that discovery.

Sen. Bill 117 & the Ohio Constitution's Impairment of Contracts Clause

One of the bills being talked about in the General Assembly is Sen. Bill 117 which would apparently wipe out local franchise agreements between cable tv providers and local governments. Apparently members of the General Assembly are taking some heat from mayors and other local government officials. You can read about their pressuring the Ohio Senate by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

What Sen. Bill 117 supposedly does is wipe out local franchise agreements and replace them with one state-wide franchise agreement. What is interesting about this proposal is that it would seem to violate the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution contains a provision that prohibits the impairment of contracts. The clause is found in Art. II, Sec. 28, which reads as follows:

§ 28. Retroactive laws The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws of this state.

If Sen. Bill 117 would "wipe out" local franchise agreements, then how could it not be a law impairing the obligation of contracts? It would seem that such a law would violate the Ohio Constitution. Of course what is interesting about this debate is how it would seem to go against three supposed "conservative" values. They are respect for local governments, respect for the sanctity of contracts freely entered into between contracting parties, and respect for the property right that is, according to many conservative writers, implicit in such contracts.

So why is the supposedly "conservative" GOP that controls the General Assembly pushing such a bill? Because in the final analysis the GOP has become the corporate party of American politics. Conservative values are fine as long as they don't interfere with what private corporations want, but if such a conflict happens, then corporate interests will win out almost everytime.

Gov. Strickland Reviews Minimum Wage Exclusion

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on its website Sunday that Gov. Ted Strickland is reviewing legislation passed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly in the last days of the late, unlamented Taft Administration, that exempts certain occupations from Ohio's new minimum wage amendment. (You can link to the article by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title.)

The irony is that if a business doesn't pay the minimum wage and relies on the bill passed by the General Assembly, it could end up paying the attorney fees of an employee suing to enfore the provisions of the amendment. The sponsors of the minimum wage amendment were smart enough to insert that provision into the amendment's language. It would have been smarter, and even easier, to have just adopted the language of the amendment and not tried to exempt certain industries from paying the new minimum wage, but that would not have helped the GOP's business allies. Because, in the end, it all comes down to following the money.

Strickland Vetoes First Bill within 16 Hours of Taking Office

The Columbus Dispatch noted in the story linked to in this entry's title that in his first 16 hours after taking the oath of office, Ted Strickland issued tough ethics regulations for his administration. His regulations are stricter than the law passed by the General Assembly. He also did something that took former Governor Robert Taft four years to do and that was veto a bill. In the waning days of the last session of the General Assembly, the Republicans passed a bill that limited damages for lead paint manufactuers. The bill was then sent to Taft, who neither signed it nor issued a veto. Instead his plan was to allow this bill to become law without his signature. Under the Ohio Constitution, a governor has 10 days to either sign the bill or veto the bill. If he does neither, then the bill becomes law without his signature.

Now, in this case, Taft believed that since the General Assembly ended his session on December 26, 2006, the ten days started then and consequently would end on January 6, 2007, before Strickland took office. The problem for the Republicans, though, is that while the General Assembly ended its session on December 26th, the bill wasn't received in the Governor's office until December 28th, 2006. By this calculation, the ten day period had not yet expired when Strickland issued his veto. Naturally, of course, Republicans are outraged by this position and are vowing to wage "war" against Strickland.

What's important isn't whether Strickland is right or wrong. What's important is that he just showed the GOP-led General Assembly that he won't be pushed around and that he will use his powers to stop them from unilaterally enacting their agenda. If the Republicans in the General Assembly thought they could bully Ted Strickland, they just got a quick lesson in gubernatorial prerogatives. Let's hope they heed it.