Tag: lawsuit

  • Attorney General Dave Yost files lawsuit against Boeing’s Board seeks accountability for safety failures

    Attorney General Dave Yost files lawsuit against Boeing’s Board seeks accountability for safety failures

    Attorney General Dave Yost is suing Boeing’s board of directors on behalf of two Ohio pension funds, seeking accountability for a pattern of safety and compliance failures that have harmed the company and its investors.

    “The safety failures at Boeing are endangering lives and threatening the financial security of shareholders,” Yost said. “Running a safe, respectable company starts with the people at the top – and it’s time for them to be held accountable.”

    Yost’s office – representing the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio – accuses Boeing board members of breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to properly oversee the company.

    The lawsuit asserts that board members and senior management, including former Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun, failed to implement adequate safety measures or to address whistleblower concerns about the company’s production processes.

    Boeing’s safety and compliance failures culminated in a near catastrophe involving a Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft earlier this year. An Alaska Airlines flight carrying 177 passengers was forced to make an emergency landing on Jan. 5 after a panel of the aircraft blew off shortly after takeoff.

    The lawsuit contends that board members and senior management know about the ongoing unsafe practices but even today fail to address them, choosing instead to prioritize profits over safety and regulatory compliance.

    “The failure of Boeing’s directors and officers to implement and oversee Boeing’s safety and compliance functions in good faith led to incalculable damage to Boeing’s relationships with its regulators, customers, lenders, potential employees, and the flying public,” the lawsuit says.

    Yost is seeking to compel Boeing’s board of directors to improve safety and oversight of the company. The lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

  • Ohio public education supporters look to 2024, lawsuit to hold private voucher system accountable

    Ohio public education supporters look to 2024, lawsuit to hold private voucher system accountable

    Getty Images

    BY:  Ohio Capital Journal

    While marijuana legislation and other bills still sit on the horizon in the second year of this term’s General Assembly, education policy can always be counted on to be a part of the discussion. 2024 should be no different.

    Ohio’s private school voucher program has been a source of strong debate among legislators and education advocates of all kinds since the 1990s, when the program began as a way to allow lower-income students to access private schools, proposed as an effort to improve education outcomes in poor-performing public school districts.

    But as public school advocates still hope to see full funding of the Fair School Funding Plan for districts across the state, they saw eye-popping increases in private school funding through vouchers that worry them almost as much as the foot-dragging that they believe has occurred when talking of public school funding.

    “You should be funding the public schools,” said Stephen Dyer, former state representative and former chair of the Ohio House Primary and Secondary Education subcommittee for the House Finance Committee. “If you want to fund the private schools, fund the private schools, but there’s no reason you can’t do both.”

    Private school voucher expansion by the numbers

    The Ohio Department of Education reported 23,272 participants in the voucher expansion for the 2023 fiscal year, up from the 20,702 reported in 2022 and even more from the year prior, when 17,155 students participated in the state-subsidized program.

    In 2021, 85% of the voucher expansion participants were below 200% of the federal poverty line, and 93% of 2022 participants were below 250% of the poverty line.

    In 2023, language on the ODE data changed to “low-income qualified” to “not low-income qualified,” removing the breakdown of federal poverty percentages. In this year’s report, 67% of participants were “low-income qualified” and 32% were “not low-income qualified.”

    With the most recent state budget, passed this summer, a GOP-led effort to expand eligibility for private school vouchers led to a ballooning of the poverty level allowed for the voucher program to 450% of the poverty line, or a household income of $135,000 or less for a family of four.

    Those receiving a scholarship can move to a private school with $6,165 in state funding for K-8 students, and $8,407 for high schoolers.

    Families with incomes above the $135,000 threshold can still be eligible for at least 10% of the maximum scholarship, even with a higher income, Senate President Matt Huffman’s office said when the budget was passed.

    Public school advocates took issue with the expansion, saying the Fair School Funding Plan, seeking to support public school districts based on their individual needs, should be the focus, considering the vast majority of students in Ohio attend traditional public schools.

    ‘A perversion of the idea behind a voucher’

    Since the most recent voucher participation numbers were released, Dyer did his own analysis of the voucher program, finding “a very different goal” compared to when it began.

    “It’s now going to wealthier, white families to subsidize the decisions they’d already made to send their kids to private schools,” Dyer told the OCJ.

    In an analysis he posted to his blog, Dyer said ODE data showed nearly nine in 10 new applications to the voucher expansion went to white students, and more new vouchers for high schoolers went to families making more than $150,000 annually than went to families making less.

    Dyer also makes an argument that has been made before by those opposing the voucher expansion: increasing private school voucher program causes “resegregation” in the public schools, with the number of white students who are leaving for private schools, vouchers in hand.

    “It’s frankly a perversion of the idea behind a voucher, which was sold as allowing poor students, students of color, students who haven’t traditionally had access to private schools, to have access,” Dyer said in an OCJ interview.

    The most recent data on Ohio’s EdChoice voucher expansion showed 66.4% of participants are white, with the Black population of voucher recipients coming in at 15%, the second highest number reported.

    In 2022, 65.9% of expansion vouchers went to white students, up from 64.1% in 2021.

    A vast majority – 9 in 10 – vouchers come from just 31 school districts, according to Dyer.

    “Those districts’ racial makeup is, on average, 21% white,” he writes in his analysis. “Yet 46% of EdChoice voucher recipients are white – more than double the percentage of white students than attend the 31 public school districts where nine in 10 voucher students would otherwise attend.”

    At the very least as the voucher program continues in Ohio, Dyer hopes a plan to audit the program is forthcoming for the billions of dollars spent to subsidize it. He pointed to an audit of the defunct Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), which exposed false enrollment numbers and led to court battles to claw back more than $60 million in state funding from the online charter school.

    “It’s all of our dollars, so we have a right to say what happens with all of our dollars, and we certainly have a right to audit where our dollars are going,” Dyer said.

    The lawsuit

    With a Republican supermajority in both chambers of the legislature, support of private school vouchers and “school choice” seems assured at least for the foreseeable future, so public school advocates are looking to other avenues to make change.

    Another court battle is still simmering in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, a lawsuit that seeks to tamp down on the voucher program in favor of the constitutional obligations the legislature has to properly fund public schools.

    The lawsuit was filed in Jan. 2022, accusing the state of Ohio of improperly and unequally funding private schools, specifically targeting the growth of the voucher program as a drain on public school resources.

    “The legislature has only moved to further expand private school vouchers in Ohio,” the leading group in the lawsuit, Vouchers Hurt Ohio, wrote in a recent statement on the program. “We do not stand a chance of changing their minds or direction so we are forced to sue to get a fair hearing in a court of law where the Ohio Constitution is respected and means something.”

    Amidst the nearly two years the case has been ongoing, time extensions have been granted and Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman has asked to be excused from a deposition due to “legislative privilege,” also arguing the testimony sought from Huffman “is neither legally relevant nor necessary.”

    Franklin County Judge Jaiza Page has not ruled on Huffman’s subpoena, but allowed subpoenas for 42 “non-party private schools” in Ohio as part of the case, selected, according to the lawsuit filers “as a representative sample based on their location, demographics, percent of EdChoice students enrolled and total EdChoice funds received.”

    Parties standing against the public school advocates in the case said the passage of the state budget, including an increase in funding for the Fair School Funding Plan along with the voucher expansion should allow for the dismissal of their complaints on funding of public schools.

    “And while plaintiffs presumably still take issue with the new, amendment program, that does not change the fact that their current complaint challenges legislation that ‘is no longer the operative legislation governing EdChoice,” attorneys arguing for dismissal stated.

    A deadline for documents and evidence in the case was Nov. 30, and the court has requested “expert reports” from both sides by Feb. 23 of next year, with a trial date set for Nov. 4, 2024.


    Susan Tebben
    SUSAN TEBBEN

    Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Governor begins Ohio’s K-12 education overhaul despite judge extending temporary restraining order

    Governor begins Ohio’s K-12 education overhaul despite judge extending temporary restraining order

    BY:  Ohio Capital Journal

    Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is moving forward with an overhaul of Ohio’s education department and state board of education despite a Franklin County judge extending a temporary restraining order to prevent that from happening.

    After an all-day preliminary injunction hearing on Monday, Franklin County Magistrate Jennifer Hunt ruled that the temporary restraining order blocking lawmakers’ attempts to overhaul Ohio’s K-12 education system remains in effect until the court makes a decision on the case, which must happen by Wednesday at noon.

    “There is certainly a potential for chaos,” DeWine said during what he called a “very unusual press conference” Monday night. “Questions such as who will send out the checks that go to our public schools across the state of Ohio, who will make the determination about eligibility for school choice. I can not let this situation fester.”

    Even though the temporary restraining order is still in effect, the education department changes are still going forward because Tuesday marks 90 days since DeWine signed the state’s operating budget into law which included these changes, DeWine said.

    As of Tuesday, he said, the Ohio Department of Education ceases to exist and is now the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, as set forth in the budget DeWine signed into law in July. Interim Superintendent Chris Woolard is in charge of the department.

    But it’s more than just a name change. This creates a cabinet-level director position, puts the department under the governor’s office, and limits the State Board of Education’s power to teacher disciplinary and licensure cases and territory disputes.

    “We believe, based upon what our lawyers tell us, that the new department can in fact function,” DeWine said.

    He said they will follow the court order and not name the new cabinet-level director, even though “we were actively in the process of finding” candidates before the temporary restraining order was put in place.

    “We will not take an active part in any way as governor in the creation of the Department of Education and Workforce,” DeWine said. “The new department has money going into that department by reason of the budget that was passed by the General Assembly.”

    Lawsuit

    Seven members of the Ohio State Board of Education filed a lawsuit against DeWine on Sept. 19 in an effort to block the education department changes in the state budget bill. The lawsuit was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

    The original plaintiffs were Christina Collins, Teresa Fedor, Kathleen Hofmann, Tom Jackson, Meryl Johnson, Antoinette Miranda, and Michelle Newman. Franklin County Judge Karen Held Phipps issued the temporary restraining order Sept. 21.

    The lawsuit complaint was amended on Sunday and now Collins, Newman, Stephanie Eichenberg and the Toledo Public School Board are the plaintiffs in the case. Eichenberg is a former Toledo Public School Board president. They are being represented by Democracy Forward and Ulmer & Berne LLP.

    “The Court already ruled that the DeWine Administration’s takeover of the State Board of Education in Ohio must be halted until it has an opportunity to issue a decision,” Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in Monday night in a statement. “If the Governor is suggesting the state will not comply with the Court’s order, then he would be in contempt of the Court.”

    Collins, Eichenberg and Toledo Public School Board President Shenna Barnes testified as plaintiffs, and ODE’s Chief of Staff Jessica Voltolini testified for the defense on Monday.

    Collins said during Monday’s hearing that she filed the lawsuit as a concerned parent, not as a state board of education member.

    “The public and transparent nature that I have enjoyed for my entire career and my entire time being a parent is gone,” she said. “There is no public debate. There is nothing that I as a parent can follow to understand why things are being done and how those things will my effect my children.”

    She is the mother of six children, with four currently attending public schools. She said she has reached out to her state board of education representative over the years about questions and concerns over implementing the state’s dyslexia policy, standardize testing and the Third Grade Reading Guarantee.

    Collins, who was elected to the state board of education in 2021, said she started looking into how to file a lawsuit on July 5, a day after DeWine signed the budget into law.

    “I felt like this looked like it was similar to the agenda of our human resources committee on a local education board,” Stephanie Eichenberg said during Monday’s hearing when she was asked what she thought of the new responsibilities of the state board of education.

    Barnes said her working relationship with the state school board “is very vital” and explained how she has worked with state board of education members to put in legislative changes in place at the local level.

    “We need someone who can give us real-time information, that gives us factual information but also responds to us when we ask questions,” Barnes said.

    Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1953 that created a State Board of Education with the power to appoint a Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Ohio State Board of Education is currently made up of 19 members — 11 elected, and eight appointed by Gov. DeWine.

    Senate Bill 1

    These changes to the Ohio Department of Education and State Board of Education started out as Senate Bill 1, which Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, introduced in January.

    The Ohio Senate voted along party lines to pass SB 1 in March — which sent it to the Ohio House, but it stayed in committee. The Senate added SB 1 to the state budget in June, which DeWine signed into law in July.

    The seven board members who originally filed the lawsuit previously wrote a letter to DeWine the day he received the budget and asked him to veto the “power grab” of changing the state board’s roles.

    Follow OCJ Reporter Megan Henry on Twitter.


    Megan Henry
    MEGAN HENRY

    Megan Henry is a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal and has spent the past five years reporting in Ohio on various topics including education, healthcare, business and crime. She previously worked at The Columbus Dispatch, part of the USA Today Network.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Franklin County judge orders temporary restraining order to stop overhaul of Ohio K-12 education

    Franklin County judge orders temporary restraining order to stop overhaul of Ohio K-12 education

    Seven members of the Ohio State Board of Education filed a lawsuit to stop the transfer of power from the Board to the governor’s office.

    BY:  Ohio Capital Journal

    A Franklin County judge has issued a temporary restraining order to block lawmakers’ attempts to overhaul Ohio’s K-12 education system.

    Seven members of the Ohio State Board of Education filed a lawsuit against Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine Tuesday in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to stop the transfer of power from the Board to the governor’s office.

    Christina Collins, Teresa Fedor, Kathleen Hofmann, Tom Jackson, Meryl Johnson, Antoinette Miranda, and Michelle Newman filed the lawsuit. They are being represented by Democracy Forward and Ulmer & Berne LLP.

    Franklin County Judge Karen Held Phipps issued the temporary restraining order Thursday and will now go to a preliminary injunction hearing on Oct. 2, a day before the changes are scheduled to take effect.

    “Creating a new cabinet-level agency is not a silver bullet and does not magically solve problems,” House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, said in a statement. “Board members are elected on a non-partisan basis and because of that, expertise and experience in education is a big factor of who gets elected. With a governor appointee, there’s little doubt we’ll see an increase in partisan decision-making.” 

    What’s in the lawsuit?

    The state’s operating budget, signed into law by DeWine, would rename the Ohio Department of Education to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. It would create a cabinet-level director position, put the department under the governor’s office and limit the State Board of Education’s power to teacher disciplinary and licensure cases and territory disputes.

    “If unchecked by this Court, the system Ohio’s citizens mandated for governing education in Ohio will be rendered virtually powerless,” the lawsuit reads. “The bill strips the Board’s democratically elected members of their core and constitutionally intended duties and responsibilities for the oversight and governance of Ohio’s public education system.”

    The plaintiffs are asking the court to grant a temporary, preliminary and permanent relief to stop the changes from going into effect, remove this piece of legislation from the state budget and strike it void.

    The Ohio State Board of Education is currently made up of 19 members — 11 elected and eight appointed by Gov. DeWine.

    Under the changes, the plaintiffs fear parents and students won’t be able to voice “their support for or opposition to developments in education policy.”

    Democratic Senators Nickie J. Antonio, Catherine Ingram, Vernon Sykes, and Paula Hicks-Hudson all support the lawsuit.

    “This lawsuit is an opportunity to restore the voice of all Ohioans through protecting the duties and powers of their state board of education members,” Antonio said in a statement.

    Senate Bill 1

    These changes to the Ohio Department of Education and State Board of Education started out as Senate Bill 1, which Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, introduced in January.

    The Ohio Senate voted along party lines to pass SB 1 in March — which sent it to the Ohio House, but it stayed in committee. The Senate added SB 1 to the state budget in June, which DeWine signed into law in July.

    “In fear that the Senate Bill 1 power grab would not pass on its own merits, the Majority chose to circumvent the process by including it in the biannual budget, violating the single subject rule,” Hicks-Hudson said in a statement. “In doing so, they also chose to disenfranchise duly elected representatives to the Board of Education.”

    These seven board members previously wrote a letter to DeWine the day he received the budget and asked him to veto the “power grab” of changing the the state board’s roles.

    Constitutional violations

    The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue these changes to the State Board of Education and ODE violate the state constitution.

    “When SB 1 could not pass as standalone legislation, the Education Takeover Rider was attached to HB 33 at the eleventh hour to ensure that the rider became law nonetheless,” the lawsuit reads. “This practice — known as logrolling — is prohibited by … the Ohio Constitution.”

    Phipps said “the Court finds it necessary to address only” the logrolling argument, according to court documents.

    Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1953 that created a State Board of Education with the power to appoint a Superintendent of Public Instruction.

    The Ohio Constitution also has the three-reading rule, which means a bill should be considered by each house on three different days.

    “The Education Takeover Rider was not considered by each house of Ohio’s General Assembly on three different days,” the lawsuit says.

    Follow OCJ Reporter Megan Henry on Twitter.


    Megan Henry
    MEGAN HENRY

    Megan Henry is a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal and has spent the past five years reporting in Ohio on various topics including education, healthcare, business and crime. She previously worked at The Columbus Dispatch, part of the USA Today Network.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Former state rep, Hamilton County resident sue to keep abortion rights amendment from November ballot

    Former state rep, Hamilton County resident sue to keep abortion rights amendment from November ballot

    Getty Stock Image

    BY:  – Ohio Capital Journal

    A lawsuit has been filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in an attempt to block a proposed abortion rights amendment from going to voters in November.

    Days after the Ohio Secretary of State verified that the campaign to get a reproductive health amendment on the ballot had collected enough valid Ohio voter signatures to be sent to voters, former Republican state Rep. Thomas Brinkman is at the top of a lawsuit to keep that from happening.

    Brinkman is joined by Hamilton County resident Jennifer Giroux, a candidate for House of Representatives’ 27th district and owner of a Catholic shop in Madeira.

    The main arguments in the lawsuit against Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the state and the coalition of groups who created the proposed amendment claim that the petition proposal “failed to comply with all of the statutory requirements for an initiative petition,” including listing existing laws that would be changed or removed if the constitutional amendment is approved by voters.

    The proposed constitutional amendment would codify abortion in the state, and allow pregnancy decisions to be between the pregnant person and a physician, and viability to be determined by medical experts.

    “Even though certain existing statutory provisions would be repealed if the proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution … is adopted, the initiative petition failed to include the text of such statutory provisions and, thus, the initiative petition violates requirements established by law and must be invalidated,” attorney Curt Hartman wrote in the lawsuit.

    This is the second such lawsuit Hartman has filed regarding the abortion amendment. The first time, he sued the Ohio Ballot Board on behalf of two members of Cincinnati Right to Life, saying the board did not deliberate enough about the issue before approving the measure, opening the door for signature collection.

    In that case, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled the board had not abused its discretion or disregarded law in approving the petition, and that signature collection could go forward.

    On Saturday, the Ohio Supreme Court set a deadline for 4 p.m. Monday to receive the first filings in the case, and an Aug. 7 deadline for all documentation from both sides.


    Susan Tebben
    SUSAN TEBBEN

    Susan Tebben is an award-winning journalist with a decade of experience covering Ohio news, including courts and crime, Appalachian social issues, government, education, diversity and culture. She has worked for The Newark Advocate, The Glasgow (KY) Daily Times, The Athens Messenger, and WOUB Public Media. She has also had work featured on National Public Radio.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Ballot measure making it harder to amend Ohio’s Constitution facing second lawsuit

    Ballot measure making it harder to amend Ohio’s Constitution facing second lawsuit

    The organization One Person One Vote has filed a second lawsuit, challenging the language recently approved by the Ohio Ballot Board

    BY:  – 

    The organization One Person One Vote has filed a new Supreme Court case related to an August amendment proposal looking to make it more difficult to change Ohio’s constitution. The organization has already challenged lawmakers’ attempt to place the question, which would raise the bar for voters to pass amendments from 50% to 60%, on the August special election ballot. The latest complaint has to do with the ballot language Ohioans will see when they cast their vote.

    The filing claims the ballot board adopted “a misleading, prejudicial ballot title and inaccurate, incomplete ballot language that improperly favor the Amendment in flagrant violation Ohio’s Constitution and laws and this Court’s jurisprudence.”

    The plaintiffs want to court to order revisions or substitute the full text of the amendment as the ballot language.

    The Ballot Board’s language

    It’s the board’s job to cut through the legalese and craft a neutral, easily understood description of what a given proposal will do. The secretary of state leads the five-member body, and due to constraints on members’ partisanship, the secretary effectively holds the deciding vote.

    At a hearing last week, an attorney for One Person One Vote brought up numerous critiques of the proposed language. The drafts made no mention of existing constitutional standards, employed words like “elevate” to cast the changes in a positive light, and even included factual inaccuracies about signature gathering.

    Nevertheless, the majority Republican board approved the language along party lines without any changes.

    The court challenge

    In its complaint, One Person One Vote elaborated on the shortcomings it identified in the ballot board hearing. Again, the group’s chief complaint had to do with the language identifying only the end result, rather than how the amendment changes existing law.

    Instead of explaining the threshold for approving constitutional amendments would rise from a simple majority to a 60% supermajority, the ballot board’s language only identifies the 60% threshold.

    “As a consequence, a voter might take the ballot language to mean that the people of Ohio do not presently get to vote on proposed amendments at all,” the complaint reads, “and might even understand the amendment itself to create that right in the first instance.”

    “Such a blatantly misleading omission contravenes fifty years of this Court’s precedents,” it adds.

    In addition to setting a higher threshold for passage, the amendment requires organizers collect signatures from all 88 counties instead of the 44 required now. It also eliminates a period in which organizers can collect additional signatures if their first submission falls short.

    The complaint found fault in how the ballot language explains both of those provisions, as well.

    One Person One Vote criticized the ballot language for saying the amendment “specif(ies)” that there won’t be a cure period, rather than explaining the amendment would eliminate it.

    On signature collection, the group argued the ballot language “does not clear even the minimal bar of factual accuracy.” It describes the requirement as 5% of a county’s eligible voters instead of the 5% who voted in that county in the previous gubernatorial election.

    “This is a considerable difference,” the complaint noted, “amounting in Hamilton County, for example, to a difference of nearly 15,000 signatures using 2022 figures.”

    Ask and outlook

    The plaintiffs want the court to direct the board to come up with new ballot language. They argue the new version must “must fully and accurately describe the status quo,” including that it has been the standard since 1912. Alternatively, they argue, the board could submit the proposed amendment’s text in full to voters.

    They also call on the court to direct Secretary LaRose to come up with a new title. “Elevating the standards,” they argue “implies that Ohio’s standards to amend its Constitution are currently too low.” The choice of ‘elevating’ rather than value neutral words like change or modify creates a “prejudicial” impression among voters.

    One Person One Vote claims they’re entitled to a rewrite because state law prohibits the ballot title and language misleading voters. The group notes the court’s case law establishes a three-part test. Voters have a right to know what they’re voting on, language that would persuade for or against the proposal is prohibited and the cumulative effect of any deficiencies dictates whether the language is valid.

    A spokesman for Secretary LaRose declined to weigh in on the lawsuit, saying only that “we don’t comment on litigation.”

    Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.

    ________________________

    Nick Evans
    NICK EVANS

    Nick Evans has spent the past seven years reporting for NPR member stations in Florida and Ohio. He got his start in Tallahassee, covering issues like redistricting, same sex marriage and medical marijuana. Since arriving in Columbus in 2018, he has covered everything from city council to football. His work on Ohio politics and local policing have been featured numerous times on NPR.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Ohio Ballot Board sued over approval of proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment

    Ohio Ballot Board sued over approval of proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment

    Gavel,” a sculpture by Andrew F. Scott, outside the Supreme Court of Ohio. Credit: Sam Howzit / Creative Commons.

    Meanwhile, Ohio Senate president eyes August for proposal to raise threshold for voters to pass constitutional amendments

    BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

    A new lawsuit claims the Ohio Ballot Board made the wrong call when they approved the validity of a constitutional amendment proposal on abortion.

    In the lawsuit, filed this week with the Ohio Supreme Court, Cincinnati attorney Curt Hartman asks the court to demand the ballot board vacate their March 13 decision, in which they said the proposed ballot language to cement abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution attempts to make changes to only one constitutional issue.

    The lawsuit also wants the state Ballot Board to “issue a determination that the foregoing initiative petition contains more than one proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution,” divide the petition into separate initiatives and certify those with the Ohio Attorney General.

    To prove the separate issues, the lawsuit cites the overturned legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade, in which abortion was described as “inherently different” than other personal rights. Because abortion is “inherently different,” parties in the lawsuit argue it represents a different issue than “one’s own reproductive decisions,” which is part of the ballot initiative, therefore “does not and cannot relate to a single general object or purpose.”

    The lawsuit acknowledges in a footnote that supporters of the ballot initiative “have not, to date, provided any explanation of the distinction between a decision concerning ‘continuing one’s own pregnancy’ versus concerning ‘abortion.’

    Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost saw the initiative before the board, and certified the amendment proposal in a separate process. In his letter confirming that the proposal could then move on to the ballot board, Yost made his own comments on the issue.

    “I cannot base my determination on the wisdom or folly of a proposed amendment as a matter of public policy,” Yost wrote in his letter on the amendment proposal.

    The lawsuit now sets the state, specifically Yost, up to defend the decision of the ballot board, despite any personal feelings he may have on the initiative itself.

    The board made no decisions on the merits of the issue, though state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, made a point to speak out against the issue during the board meeting, saying she was “horrified at the thought of this amendment.”

    Hartman is representing Margaret DeBlase and John Giroux, both members of the Cincinnati Right to Life. Giroux spoke during the Ohio Ballot Board meeting.

    “If this is about one issue, this amendment is about abortion, and that’s plain and simple,” Giroux told the board. “They want to advance abortion in our state constitution.”

    In the lawsuit, Hartman argues there was “absolutely no discussion or debate whatsoever” by the members of the board, other than Gavarone’s comments.

    Parties challenging the decision say the ballot board’s action, or lack thereof, “constitutes an abuse of discretion and/or an act in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions.”

    The Ohio Supreme Court has not decided whether or not they will accept the lawsuit for review.

    Pro-abortion rights groups are facing a July 5 deadline to gather signatures in support of placing the petition on the ballot in November. That deadline might also lie in the shadow of an August special election now, with Senate President Matt Huffman expressing interest in placing a measure on the ballot that month to increase the threshold needed to amend the constitution by changing it to 50% plus one vote to 60%.

  • Judge boots lawyers from FirstEnergy bribery suit for failure to ‘diligently prosecute’

    Judge boots lawyers from FirstEnergy bribery suit for failure to ‘diligently prosecute’

    FirstEnergy’s headquarters in Akron. Source: Google Maps.

    BY: JAKE ZUCKERMAN – Ohio Capital Journal

    In an unusual move in a high-profile lawsuit, a federal judge booted lawyers from a lawsuit they filed against FirstEnergy Corp. for their failure to “diligently prosecute” the case against the scandal-mired company.

    U.S. District Judge John Adams said Wednesday he would appoint counsel on behalf of the shareholders who sued the company in connection with what federal prosecutors have called the largest bribery scandal in state history.

    Both the shareholders and FirstEnergy publicly announced that they’d reached a settlement in March that called for insurers to pay the company $180 million and for the ouster of six board members. One federal judge preliminarily approved the settlement in May, but said he had no authority over the two other judges overseeing the related cases.

    Adams has for months lambasted the plaintiffs for agreeing to settlements without deposing witnesses, reviewing evidence, and shirking other typical fact-finding efforts.

    “As the parties have made clear that they do not intend to prosecute the matter before this Court, the Court will appoint counsel,” he said Wednesday. “Consistent with the Court’s authority to oversee this derivative action to its conclusion, the Court will appoint counsel that will be willing to diligently prosecute this matter and seek approval from this Court of any potential resolution, if one is reached.”

    The lawsuit traces back to the 2019 passage of Ohio House Bill 6 — an energy policy overhaul worth about $1.3 billion to FirstEnergy. In 2020, federal prosecutors arrested then-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and accused him and four allies of secretly accepting about $60 million from FirstEnergy and using it for personal enrichment, political gain, and to engineer passage and enactment of HB 6.

    Last summer, FirstEnergy Corp. admitted in federal court to the operation, also stating it paid Sam Randazzo, then Ohio’s top utility regulator, a $4.3 million bribe. FirstEnergy paid a $230 million penalty in connection with the filing and agreed to cooperate in related criminal investigations to possibly avert a federal charge of wire fraud.

    Householder has pleaded innocent and awaits trial. Two of four alleged conspirators have pleaded guilty. One died by suicide. Randazzo has not been charged with a crime and denied wrongdoing.

    FirstEnergy’s shareholders filed a derivative action against the company. This entails the shareholders suing the board of directors on behalf of a corporation for an alleged breach of duties, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. This allows shareholders to benefit as a derivative of the company’s corrective action.

    Adams called on a clerk to post the order in the court’s “News & Announcements” page. Interested lawyers can write him to express interest by July 25.

    His colorful outbursts have pockmarked the lawsuit. In the first hearing after the proposed settlement was announced, Adams demanded someone in the case answer a simple question: “Who paid the bribe?”

    After repeated attempts went nowhere, Adams told a lawyer for the plaintiffs that the attorney was wasting his time. Adams then stormed from the bench, according to an Akron Beacon Journal report.

    He later threatened to dismiss lawyers from the case if someone didn’t answer his question. An attorney for the plaintiffs later identified the alleged orchestrators of the bribery operation — two FirstEnergy executives — for the first time publicly.

    Last week, he denied a request from both the company and its shareholders that he dismiss the case, which could have cleared the way for the settlement. He cited uncomplete exchange of evidence between parities, no testimony under oath from any defendants, and an incomplete forensic examination to identify “possible missing communications” from FirstEnergy CEO Charles Jones’ phone.

    He also noted that of the $180 million, the settlement allows plaintiff’s lawyers to seek nearly $49 million in fees. Thus, he said it’s “hardly surprising” that they’d prefer the case handled by a judge who’s warmer to the settlement proposal.

    Two attorneys representing the shareholders did not respond to inquiries.

    A FirstEnergy spokeswoman declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

  • Ohio Supreme Court denies attempt to stop abortion ban

    Ohio Supreme Court denies attempt to stop abortion ban

    BY: SUSAN TEBBEN – Ohio Capital Journal

     Protesters gathered at the statehouse to voice opposition to the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. (photo by Nick Evans)

    The Ohio Supreme Court has denied an attempt by abortion clinics to stop a six-week abortion ban from being enforced.

    In a Friday ruling, the court denied a motion for an emergency stay of Senate Bill 23, legislation signed into law in 2019 that banned abortion up to six-weeks gestation.

    The lawsuit is still ongoing, but denial of the emergency stay means abortion clinics won’t be able to conduct abortions past six weeks as the case continues. The announcement did not indicate whether the denial was unanimous.

    The court asked for responses by Thursday to the lawsuit’s request to stay the law, and received briefs from state officials, prosecutors and academics.

    In a “friend of the court brief” filed Thursday, professors of public health, sociology, epidemiology and public affairs from The Ohio State University and the University of Cincinnati joined with the ACLU and Planned Parenthood in pushing for an end to Senate Bill 23, which was implemented on Friday, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

    “Instead of reflecting the Ohioan majority view that supports abortion rights, SB 23 caters to the minority fraction of Ohioans that are unsupportive of these rights,” the brief states.

    The researchers cite polling data on support of abortion rights from three different universities: Suffolk University, Baldwin Wallace University and Quinnipiac University. All of the surveys found a majority of survey-takers supported abortion rights, and the professors argued that the polls proved that public opinion is on the side of abortion rights.

    “While abortion attitudes arise out of complex combination of interlocking feelings toward gender, religion, politics, morality, science and many other facets, SB 23 allows from none of this nuance,” the professors wrote.

    Prosecutors from Cuyahoga County and Franklin County aren’t going to stand in the way of the lawsuit. Both Michael O’Malley and Gary Tyack filed documents with the court saying they “do not oppose” granting an emergency stay of the law.

    O’Malley previously signed on to a letter with other national prosecutors and attorneys pledging not to enforce abortion bans following the Supreme Court decision.

    Attorney General Dave Yost also responded to the lawsuit, calling the request for emergency stay of the law “substantively and procedurally flawed,” citing the Roe v. Wade ruling last week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.

    “With this holding, the court extricated itself from having to repeatedly decide policy matters that the Constitution leaves to the states and the political branches,” Yost wrote.

    Any contention that Ohio’s constitution holds the right to abortion is “indefensible,” the attorney general stated, “no matter the theory of constitutional interpretation one might embrace.”

    Follow OCJ Reporter Susan Tebben on Twitter.

  • Ohio city sues Netflix and Hulu for piece of streaming pie

    Ohio city sues Netflix and Hulu for piece of streaming pie

    BY: JAKE ZUCKERMAN – Ohio Capital Journal

    A small, Cleveland suburb has filed a lawsuit against Netflix and Hulu, trying to force the streaming companies to pay a franchise fee typically applied to cable providers.

    The lawsuit is part of a growing national trend of cities in at least 13 states, often pinched by shrinking budgets, targeting the nascent streaming industry for new tax revenues.

    The city’s suit is filed under a state law written and passed in 2007 — when Netflix was mostly mailing its customers DVDs and Hulu had yet to launch.

    Maple Heights, population 23,000, filed a class action suit in federal court in August 2020. Its claim is simple: Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu provide content that reaches customers through DSL and fiber optic cable lines along public rights of way, just like cable providers do.

    Those cable providers must pay a tax of up to 5% of their gross revenue in an area as a “video service provider” fee. If cable companies must pay, Maple Heights argued, then so should Netflix and Hulu. The lawsuit comes as customers increasingly bail on cable and opt for streaming — a trend that’s costing cities money.

    Both Dish Network — which owns both cable and streaming companies — and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost have filed legal arguments supporting Netflix and Hulu. In July, U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin sent two certified questions to the Ohio Supreme Court to answer:

    • Are Netflix and Hulu “video service providers” under Ohio law?
    • Can Maple Heights bring the lawsuit in the first place?

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case next month.

    In 2007, bipartisan state legislators passed a law centralizing franchising rights at the state level instead of local. The law defined video service as “the provision of video programming over wires or cables located at least in part in public rights-of-way.” However, it excludes video programming provided solely via a service that offers content “over the public internet.”

    Both the streaming companies emphasized they don’t have any hardware in Ohio, and the law exempts internet companies anyways.

    “Netflix has no wires, cables, or other infrastructure in any Ohio public rights of way,” the company’s lawyers wrote.

    Additionally, the 2007 said a company must provide “video programming” — Netflix argues it doesn’t. Its lawyers said ‘programming’ necessarily means prescheduled shows and movies, as opposed to Netflix’s on-demand content.

    Maple Heights said the content Netflix provides is not only comparable to broadcast television, but “indistinguishable.”

    The city argued the “public internet” exemption referred to internet service providers, not streaming services. And content behind a paywall, it said, isn’t public. As far as hardware: The law only requires the companies to use cables — not build or own them, the argument said.

    “Indeed, [Netflix and Hulu’s] ability to deliver their content — and, in turn, operate their enormously profitable businesses — depends wholly on the quality and strength of these wireline facilities,” lawyers for Maple Heights wrote.

    A Netflix spokeswoman declined to comment. Hulu did not respond to inquiries. Maple Heights Mayor Annette Blackwell and a lawyer representing the city didn’t respond to inquiries.

    Mixed success 

    More and more cities, all with similar laws levying fees on cable companies who rely on the use of public rights of way, have filed similar lawsuits over the past two years.

    A count from Bloomberg Law, current as of October 2021, identified 13 such lawsuits around the country. Four have been dismissed. Most the others are mired in procedural battles, including plaintiffs seeking to keep the cases in state court and the streaming companies seeking to transfer them to federal court.

    In Ohio, cities’ share of state tax collections has dwindled. In 2020, the local government fund, split among cities and townships, received $377 million. In 2010, it was $612 million. In 2000, the fund was $675 million, plus another $95 million in a similar account.

    The Ohio Municipal League, which typically advocates for more local government funding, didn’t respond to inquiries about the case, nor did the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

    Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C.-based think thank focused on tech policy, argued the state interest in franchise fees from cable companies don’t apply to streaming companies.

    Cord-cutters disgorged cities of franchise fee revenues, its lawyers argued, putting the cities in a pickle. But expanding the tax to include streaming services will hike costs for customers and stifle competition from potential competitors.