DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ______) Ohio A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ______) Ohio A Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 251-1 Filed: 03/23/19 Page: 1 of 266 PAGEID #: 21938 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ____________________________________ ) OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH ) INSTITUTE, et al. ) ) No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Plaintiffs, ) ) Judge Timothy S. Black v. ) Judge Karen Nelson Moore ) Judge Michael H. Watson LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, Speaker of the ) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz Ohio House of Representatives, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 251-1 Filed: 03/23/19 Page: 2 of 266 PAGEID #: 21939 Table of Contents I. The Parties and Their Claims .......................................................................................... 1 II. The Republicans’ Predominant Intent Was to Entrench a Partisan Advantage Through Congressional Redistricting in 2011. ............................................................... 2 A. National Republicans sought full Republican control of Ohio’s 2011 redistricting process. ............................................................................................. 2 1. Ohio was central to national Republicans’ plan to maximize their influence over congressional redistricting. ................................................. 2 2. In 2010, with the help of their national counterparts, Ohio Republicans secured total control over the 2011 redistricting process............................ 5 B. Ohio and national Republicans mounted a collaborative effort to achieve their partisan gerrymandering goals. ................................................................. 6 1. Ohio and national Republicans began their collaboration regarding congressional redistricting before and immediately after the November 2010 midterm elections. .............................................................................. 6 2. After Republicans won full control of the General Assembly, national Republicans assembled their gerrymandering team, including RNC redistricting expert Thomas Hofeller. ......................................................... 9 3. National Republicans provided the map drawers with partisan political data for use in drawing and evaluating congressional district maps. ........ 11 C. Speaker Boehner’s team sought to lock in the Republican’s eight-seat advantage—and the Ohio Republicans effectuated it. .................................... 14 1. The 2010 elections were a high-water mark for Republicans, who sought to entrench their eight-seat advantage through the 2011 redistricting. ..... 14 2. Speaker Boehner directed his political team to craft a congressional map that locked in the Republican’s eight-seat advantage. .............................. 16 3. Republican leaders were committed to enacting a map that Speaker Boehner fully supported. ........................................................................... 19 D. Republicans drew proposed maps in secret and used political indices to craft their desired 12-4 map. ....................................................................................... 21 1. Republicans’ paid consultants drew proposed maps in secret. ................. 21 2. The map drawers regularly briefed Ohio Republican leaders on the proposed districts using political indices. ................................................. 25 3. Republican map drawers relied on an index that understated Republican strength and overstated the competitiveness of proposed districts. .......... 29 E. National and state Republicans agreed to draw a 12-4 map by packing and cracking Democratic voters. .............................................................................. 32 i Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 251-1 Filed: 03/23/19 Page: 3 of 266 PAGEID #: 21940 1. The Republicans were determined to preserve their eight-seat advantage through a 12-4 map. .................................................................................. 32 2. The Republicans briefly considered a 13-3 map, but set it aside as too risky........................................................................................................... 35 F. In order to achieve a 12-4 map, national and Ohio Republicans designed a map around the “Franklin County Sinkhole.” ................................................ 37 1. National Republicans conceived of the “Franklin County Sinkhole” and presented it to Ohio Republicans as a preferred plan. .............................. 38 2. National Republican analysis shows that the “Franklin County Sinkhole” ensured a 12-4 map by packing Democrats in the 3rd District and taking Democratic voters out of 12th and 15th Districts. .................................... 41 3. To effectuate the “Franklin County Sinkhole,” national Republicans kept “dog meat” voting territory out of the 15th District and placed it in the 3rd District instead. ......................................................................................... 43 4. By September 10, 2011, the national Republicans reconfirmed the Franklin County Sinkhole architecture. .................................................... 44 5. The Franklin County Sinkhole proposal locked in a statewide Republican advantage. ................................................................................................. 46 6. The architecture of the “Sinkhole” informed the enacted maps. .............. 49 G. National Republicans guided the preparation of H.B. 319 and received regular updates on expected partisan outcomes from the Ohio map drawers. ............................................................................................................................... 50 1. The national Republicans were driving to “put a lid” on changes to the map. ........................................................................................................... 51 2. Senate President Niehaus was “still committed to ending up with a map that Speaker Boehner fully supports” even if it meant going against the wishes of the Ohio legislative leadership. ................................................. 52 3. Senator Widener’s proposed amendments were rejected by Whatman and DiRossi. ..................................................................................................... 53 4. Senator Faber’s tweaks were accepted, but only after careful review by Whatman. .................................................................................................. 54 5. Political scorings drove edits to the 15th District, which were also run past Whatman. .................................................................................................. 56 6. The map drawers ran shifts in political scorings of less than 1% past national Republicans. ................................................................................ 57 7. The national Republicans requested and implemented last-minute changes to the map. ................................................................................................. 58 H. Through the use of political indices, applied to individual districts in Maptitude, the Republicans confirmed the 12-4 seat division in H.B. 319 and ii Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 251-1 Filed: 03/23/19 Page: 4 of 266 PAGEID #: 21941 H.B. 369. ............................................................................................................... 60 1. The map drawers evaluated proposed districts through the use of several political indices created in collaboration with national Republicans. ....... 60 2. Republican map drawers used Maptitude to assess partisan scorings for proposed districts in real time. .................................................................. 62 3. Prior to introducing H.B. 319, Republicans knew it would be a 12-4 map based on the political index information. .................................................. 65 I. Republicans enacted H.B. 319 without meaningful Democratic input or support. ................................................................................................................ 67 1. Ohio Republicans pushed H.B. 319 through the General Assembly without meaningful Democratic support. ............................................................... 67 2. Ohio Republicans did not allow lawmakers any time to debate the merits of H.B. 319. ............................................................................................... 69 J. Even as they considered replacing H.B. 319, Republicans never wavered in their insistence on a 12-4 map. ........................................................................... 71 1. Ohio citizens initiated a referendum campaign to challenge H.B. 319. ... 71 2. Republicans created a “Split Primary” scheme that would have cost Ohio taxpayers $15 million and generated voter confusion. ............................. 72 3. After creating the “Split-Primary” scheme, Republicans refused to consider anything other than a 12-4 map. ................................................. 73 4. Republicans attempted to push H.B. 369 through the General Assembly, but failed to obtain a supermajority. ......................................................... 75 5. The Republicans never relented in their demand for a 12-4 map. ............ 77 K. Republicans preserved their 12-4 map through the enactment of H.B. 369. 78 1. With total political control, and the collapse of the referendum initiative, Republicans imposed a 12-4 map with token Democratic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ______) Ohio A
    Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 1 of 44 PAGEID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO __________________________________________ ) OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, ) LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, ) LINDA GOLDENHAR, DOUGLAS BURKS, ) SARAH INSKEEP, CYNTHIA LIBSTER, ) KATHRYN DEITSCH, LUANN BOOTHE, ) MARK JOHN GRIFFITHS, LAWRENCE ) NADLER, CHITRA WALKER, RIA MEGNIN, ) ANDREW HARRIS, AARON DAGRES, ) COMPLAINT ELIZABETH MYER, ERIN MULLINS, TERESA ) THOBABEN, and CONSTANCE RUBIN, ) No. ) Plaintiffs, ) Three-Judge Court Requested ) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) v. ) ) JOHN KASICH, Governor of Ohio, ) JON HUSTED, Secretary of State of Ohio, ) KIRK SCHURING, Speaker Pro Tempore of ) the Ohio House of Representatives, and LARRY ) OBHOF, President of the Ohio Senate, in their ) official capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 2 of 44 PAGEID #: 2 INTRODUCTION 1. This case is a challenge to Ohio’s current United States congressional redistricting plan (the “plan” or “map”) as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that violates the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I of the United States Constitution. 2. The current Ohio map is one of the most egregious gerrymanders in recent history. The map was designed to create an Ohio congressional delegation with a 12 to 4 Republican advantage—and lock it in for a decade. It has performed exactly as its architects planned, including in 2012, when President Barack Obama won the state. In statewide and national elections, Ohio typically swings from Democrats to Republicans. In this decade, Republicans have secured 51% to 59% of the total statewide vote in congressional elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Statehouse Report
    March 31, 2017 Big step forward for permissive county authority to levy additional $5 motor vehicle license fee Thank you to CCAO members & partners for your awesome advocacy efforts! Thanks to the General Assembly approving the Transportation Budget Conference Committee Report, counties are a BIG step closer to being able to levy an additional $5 motor vehicle license fee to fund local road and bridge infrastructure. The Conference Committee, tasked with ironing out the differences between the Ohio House and Senate, on Monday picked the House-passed provision that gave a board of county commissioners or county council the permissive authority to pass a resolution enacting the fee, though subject to voter referendum. County commissioners, county executives and county council members along with their staff and CCAO’s policy team worked with a coalition of advocates, including the County Engineers Association of Ohio (CEAO), regional planning agencies and several business organizations, to support the proposed additional $5 motor vehicle license tag fee, which hasn’t been adjusted since 1987. Thank you to CCAO’s members and our partners for your advocacy efforts that made an enormous difference! Several elected officials along with county staff provided testimony and attended statehouse hearings. Moreover, many contacted lawmakers expressing support for a board of commissioners and council members to exercise funding decisions, subject to referendum, that reflect the needs of their counties. The measure is before the Governor for his consideration and is expected to take action on the bill soon. Details on other provisions in the bill and the Governor’s action will be reported in next week’s CCAO Statehouse Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Decision; Alaska Republican Party, Et Al. V. Alaska
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA DAVID THOMPSON; AARON DOWNING; JIM CRAWFORD; and DISTRICT 18 of the ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:15-cv-00218-TMB vs. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION PAUL DAUPHINAIS, in His Official Capacity as the Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission; and MARK FISH, IRENE CATALONE, RON KING, KENNETH KIRK, and VANCE SANDERS, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs David Thompson, Aaron Downing, Jim Crawford, and District 18 of the Alaska Republican Party (“District 18”) bring this lawsuit against Defendants Paul Dauphinais, Mark Fish, Irene Catalone, Ron King, Kenneth Kirk, and Vance Sanders (collectively, “Defendants” or “the State”) to challenge the constitutionality of four provisions of Alaska’s campaign finance laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.1 The Court called this matter for bench trial on April 25, 2016. The parties concluded their arguments and presentations of evidence on May 1 Dkt. 1 (Compl.); Dkt. 46 (First Am. Compl.). 1 Case 3:15-cv-00218-TMB Document 148 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 26 3, 2016,2 and subsequently submitted post-trial briefs.3 Having carefully considered the pleadings, exhibits, trial testimony, arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.4 II. BACKGROUND In 1996, the Alaska Legislature enacted Chapter 48 SLA 1996 for the purpose of “substantially revis[ing] Alaska’s campaign
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Issue Direction To
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 18CVS 014001 COMMON CAUSE,etal, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS DAVID LEWIS,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING, et al., Defendants. m a EXHIBIT A STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (continued) SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 2 Counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors: COUNTY OF WAKE 18 CVS 014001 3 Shanahan Law Group BY: John E. Branch, III COMMON CAUSE, ET AL., ) 4 128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300 ) Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Plaintiffs, ) 5 (919) 856-9494 ) [email protected] vs. ) 6 ) Counsel for the Deponent: DAVID LEWIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) 7 CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN ) Fiduciary Litigation Group OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ) 8 BY: Tom Sparks ON REDISTRICTING, ET AL., ) 223 South West Street, Suite 900 ) 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Defendants. ) (919) 229-0845 10 [email protected] 11 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 12 Also Present: Trae Howerton, Videographer STEPHANIE HOFELLER 13 ________________________________________________ 14 9:38 A.M. 15 FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 16 Reported By: Discovery Court Reporters and Legal ________________________________________________ Videographers 17 BY: Lisa A. Wheeler, RPR, CRR POYNER SPRUILL 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1000 18 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 301 FAYETTEVILLE STREET, SUITE 1900 (919) 649-9998 19 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA --oOo-- 20 21 22 23 BY: LISA A. WHEELER, RPR, CRR 24 25 1 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 1 I N D E X 2 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: PAGE 3 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer 2 BY: R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Resolution to Honor the “Saint of the Republican Party” Myrna Maynard
    A Resolution to Honor the “Saint of the Republican Party” Myrna Maynard Whereas, after her arrival in Alaska in 1961 from Johannesburg, South Africa, Myrna took up community volunteerism in addition to raising her family. Through those efforts, she found her calling in Alaska politics. She volunteered for her first campaign in 1968 for Senator Ted Stevens. This calling and the desire to vote, lead her to become a United States citizen in 1985. Whereas, Myrna spent countless hours working with Republican candidates, offering praise and rebuke as needed. She was so well known for her outstanding positions that she received a proclamation from Mayor Knowles regarding her "verbal vigilance" on her 50th birthday. Whereas, her firm stance and no-nonsense approach made her the ideal person to take up the responsibilities of “Gatekeeper” for both Senate President Drue Pearce and House Speaker Gail Phillips. If you wanted to see her charge, you made an appointment and you arrived on time. This policy applied to everyone, family and friends included. Whereas, “Mean Myrna” was not just her email address, it was her armor against the foolhardy. Her wit and wisdom were freely given as was her praise; but, do something she did not agree with and you would find yourself on the other side of “Mean Myrna”. This is not an experience you would repeat. Whereas, after her time as Legislative Aide and Gatekeeper, Myrna devoted her time and energy to many republican candidates as their Treasurer and guru of all things APOC and FEC. She devoted her time hand-entering thousands of records of donations for individual candidates, oftentimes with her beloved husband, Ken, helping at her side.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 1A APPENDIX a UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No
    APPENDIX 1a APPENDIX A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ———— No. 19-3196 ———— WILLIAM T. SCHMITT; CHAD THOMPSON; DEBBIE BLEWITT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FRANK LAROSE, Ohio Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant. ———— Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus No. 2:18-cv-00966— Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief District Judge. ———— Argued: June 26, 2019 Decided and Filed: August 7, 2019 ———— Before: CLAY, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. ———— COUNSEL ARGUED: Benjamin M. Flowers, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON 2a BRIEF: Benjamin M. Flowers, Michael J. Hendershot, Stephen P. Carney, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTOR- NEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Mark R. Brown, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Columbus, Ohio, Mark G. Kafantaris, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which CLAY, J., joined, and BUSH, J., joined in part. BUSH, J. (pp. 15–26), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. OPINION HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs William T. Schmitt and Chad Thompson submitted proposed ballot initiatives to the Portage County Board of Elections that would effectively decriminal- ize marijuana possession in the Ohio villages of Garrettsville and Windham. The Board declined to certify the proposed initiatives after concluding that the initiatives fell outside the scope of the municipali- ties’ legislative authority. Plaintiffs then brought this action asserting that the statutes governing Ohio’s municipal ballot-initiative process impose a prior restraint on their political speech, violating their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Models and Post-Bandemer Redistricting
    Computer Models and Post-Bandemer Redistricting Michelle H. Browdy Since the Supreme Court first held political redistricting1 to be justicia- ble in Baker v. Carr,2 legal challenges to districting plans have increased dramatically.3 Because the Court's 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer4 held partisan gerrymandering5 to be justiciable for the first time,6 even more litigation will likely accompany redistricting following the 1990 cen- 1. States are divided into geographical districts from which representatives are elected either for the United States House of Representatives or for state legislative bodies. Political redistricting occurs when states redraw their political boundary lines after each decennial census. Since the benefits and detriments of automated redistricting apply equally to both congressional and state legislative redis- triting, this Note will not distinguish between them. The Supreme Court, however, does treat chal- lenges to the two types of districts differently, applying tighter standards of population equality to congressional districts than to state legislative districts. Compare Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (invalidating plan for New Jersey's congressional districts with average deviation from perfect population equality of 0.1384%) with Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) (upholding plan for Wyoming state legislature with maximum population deviation of 89%). 2. 369 U.S. 186 (1962). In Baker, the Court held that a challenge to the disparity of population size in districts of the Tennessee General Assembly was justiciable under the equal protection clause, U.S. CoN sT. amend XIV, § 1. A previous challenge to the lack of population equality in districts in Illinois had been held nonjusticiable when it was brought under the guaranty clause, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • How an Outdated Electoral Structure Has Led to Political Polarization in the United States
    The United States Election System: How an Outdated Electoral Structure has led to Political Polarization in the United States by Jake Fitzharris A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Political Science and Psychology (Honors Associate) Presented January 24, 2019 Commencement June 2019 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Jake Fitzharris for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Political Science and Psychology presented on January 24, 2019. Title: The United States Election System: How an Outdated Electoral Structure has led to Political Polarization in the United States. Abstract approved:_____________________________________________________ Christopher Nichols Political Polarization in the United States is at a level higher today than at any point in the past few decades. Possible causes of this rise in polarization have been provided from various sources, including explanations such as mass media and income inequality. Through historical analysis and a wide literature review, this thesis explores a major factor in political polarization, the United States election system. The thesis argues that the election system in the United States exacerbates the intensely polarized political climate of the modern day United States in three main ways: the electoral college, which produces the persisting two party system, primary elections, which reinforce extreme candidate views, and districting, which tends to increase politically uniform districts and lead candidates to position themselves at the poles rather than in the center. The thesis concludes that the only way to eliminate political polarization stemming from all of these sources would be to implement a unique proportional representation system for the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Conference
    Volume XXXIII, Number 5• September-October 2010 The 2010 NASW Ohio Chapter Annual Conference October 28 -29 Keynote Address • A Focus on Values, Ethics, & Principles, 29 to be delivered by Workshops to Choose From (earn 10 CEUs) Senator Capri Cafaro! • Introducing the newly developed Supervision Certificate Program (ability to earn 13 CEUs) • Opportunity to Exhibit Social Work Scholarship -Student and Faculty Research Symposium! • Network with 300+ Social Workers and represen- tatives from 30+ Human Service Organizations Evening of Entertainment on Oct 28th: Fresh Air Gallery presents: national award winning art by Kyle Boganwright! Social Workers as Advocates: Changing Our Communities for Moving Our World Forward: the Better A Documentary about the Power of Social Work *Additional CEU Opportunity September - October, 2010 1 Rebecca L. Sanford Ohio-NASW President of the Board of Directors The Value of NASW My last article focused on the value of social work and the importance of defining what this means. This time I’d like to focus on the value of NASW. When we talk about Ohio NASW the value of NASW membership, there are some questions that the NASW staff and Board of Directors July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 leadership continue to explore and struggle to find the answers to. President Rebecca Sanford Why do people join NASW? Why do people maintain their membership while others [email protected] decide not to renew? What can we do to encourage members to renew? How can we appeal to social workers at greatly varying stages of their professional life? President-Elect Victoria Marion [email protected] In an era of a recession when many people, myself included, try to limit themselves to only the necessities of life, how do we make membership valuable? The truth is that First Vice President Louis Weigele [email protected] the value of NASW is different for each member.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Money Buy Justice: Contributions to Ohio Supreme
    Can Money Buy Justice? Contribuons to Ohio Supreme Court Candidates 2018 By Catherine Turcer and Mia Lewis Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................3 2. Introduction ............................................................................................3 3. Follow the Money .......................................................................................4 4. Recusal Is Common Sense — but Not the Law in Ohio ....................................................4 5. Why Recusal Is Important: Two Examples From Recent Ohio History ......................................6 6. Campaign Contributions to Ohio Supreme Court Justice Candidates, January-August 2018 .............6 7. Other Sources and Forms of Funding for Judicial Candidates ............................................11 Independent expenditures ...........................................................................11 Political parties ......................................................................................13 8. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.: A Cautionary Tale From a Neighbor ....................................13 9. It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way: Recusal in Georgia and Michigan ........................................14 10. A Way Forward for Ohio: Recommendations ............................................................15 11. Summary and Conclusions. 16 12. Methodology ..........................................................................................17 13. Current
    [Show full text]
  • December 12, 2016 131ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY ENDS LAME DUCK
    December 12, 2016 131ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY ENDS LAME DUCK SESSION WITH SEVERAL MUNICIPAL ISSUES ADDRESSED The lame duck session ended Friday morning at about 3:30 am and as the dust settled, we’re proud to report that Ohio municipalities were able to claim a number of victories, a few draws, and only a limited number of losses. Now, we immediately turn our agenda to the next General Assembly, with the release of our first broad based policy report tomorrow. We would like to express our gratitude toward the many members of the General Assembly who worked with us on these many issues. Many members worked with us late into the night many times and worked hard to consider our concerns. Below, we review the legislation that effected municipalities in the final days of the session. Each of the following bills has been sent to Governor Kasich for his consideration. First, is Senate Bill 331, introduced by Senator Bob Peterson (R-Washington Court House). The original bill would regulate the sale of dogs from pet stores and dog retailers and to require the Director of Agriculture to license pet stores. This bill was introduced to create a statewide regulatory framework for pet breeding. The OML opposed this portion of the bill as an infringement on Home Rule and “single issue rule” problems which is the part of the Ohio Constitution that prohibits the legislature from passing bills with multiple subjects. This bill became a “Christmas tree bill” where numerous amendments were added, including language from AT&T on the 5G roll out Amendment 1: As mentioned above and as many of our members are aware, the House Finance committee amended the bill to create new regulations concerning micro wireless facility operators for their use of municipally owned land.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Primary Election Results Analysis OAEPS | Baldwin Wallace
    ANOTHER “YEAR OF THE WOMAN?” WOMEN RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN OHIO IN THE 2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS BARBARA PALMER Professor of Political Science Department of Politics and Global Citizenship Executive Director & Creator, Center for Women & Politics of Ohio Baldwin Wallace University Berea, OH [email protected] Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ohio Association of Economists and Political Scientists, Capitol University, Columbus OH, September, 2018 1 ANOTHER “YEAR OF THE WOMAN?” WOMEN RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN OHIO IN THE 2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS1 The 2018 midterm election has been commonly referred to as another “Year of the Woman.” There is already a great deal of evidence that this election cycle will be a record year for female candidates. For example, in Georgia, Stacey Abrams defeated another woman, Stacey Evans, to win the Democratic primary for governor; Abrams is the first African American woman to ever be a major-party nominee for governor in US history. In addition, a record number of women have filed to run for US House (“2018 Summary”). Women are opening their pocket books in record numbers: in 2014, the last midterm election, 198,000 women contributed $200 or more to a federal campaign or political action committee. By July of 2018, three months before the midterm election, 329,000 women had contributed, and they were contributing to female candidates (Bump, 2018). As one political commentator explained, “As the midterms near, there are signs that an energized base of women will play a significant — and probably defining — role in the outcome” (Bump, 2018). This paper will explore the trends in women running for public office in Ohio; more specifically, are we seeing an increase in the number of women running for US Congress, state legislature, governor and other state-wide offices? In 1992, the original “Year of the Woman,” we saw a spike in the number of female candidates across the nation at the state and national level.
    [Show full text]