DOCSLIB.ORG

Original in the Supreme Court of Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Original in the Supreme Court of Ohio ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MEGHAN GALLAGHER Case No. 2010-1788 On Appeal from the Lucas County Plaintiff - Appellant, Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, Case No. L-10-1051 V. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Defendant - Appellee, and OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE Defendant - Appellee, and NOV 1,72010 PAUL HOAG and JEFFREY SIMPSON CLERK OF COURT Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. SUPREME COURT OF OHI® MEMORANDUM OF OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OPPOSING JURISDICTION Anne Marie Sferra (0030855) Anthony J. DeGidio (0069064) Christopher N. Slagle (0077641) 712 Farrer Street BRICKER & ECKLER LLP Maumee, Ohio 43537 100 South Third Street Telephone: (419) 509-1878 Columbus, Ohio 43215-4291 Facsimile: (419) 740-2556 Telephone: (614) 227-2300 Facsimile: (614) 227-2390 Scott A. Ciolek (0082779) [email protected] CIOLEK, LTD. [email protected] 520 Madison Avenue, Suite 820 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Attorneysfor Defendant-Appellee Telephone: (419) 740-5935 Ohio Republican Party State Central Comm ee Facsimile: (866) 890-0419 Co-Counsel for Appellant Meghan Gallagher 4114471v1 JULIA R. BATES LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Steven J. Papadimos (0005317) John A. Borell (00 1646 1) Andrew K. Ranazzi (0040617) Lucas County Courthouse, Suite 250 Toledo, Ohio 43624 Telephone: (419) 213-2001 Fax: (419) 213-2011 Counsel for Appellee Lucas County Board of Elections R. Kent Murphree (0065730) Gary O. Sommer (0006257) HEBAN SOMMER & MURPHREE 200 Dixie Highway Rossford, Ohio 43460 Telephone: (419) 662-3100 Facsimile: (419) 662-6533 Counselfor Appellees Jeffrey Simpson and Paul Hoag 2 4114477v1 MEMORANDUM OPPOSING JURISDICTION A. This Case Does Not Involve a Question of Public or Great General Interest or a Substantial Constitutional Question' Plaintiff-Appellant Meghan Gallagher ("Gallagher") initiated this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in January 2010, based on a 2009 squabble within the Lucas County Republican Party ("LCRP"). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court resolved this intraparty spat by denying the injunctive relief sought and ordering the party to resolve its own dispute pursuant to R.C. 3517.05. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Gallagher now asks this Court to accept this appeal as a discretionary appeal. Simply put, this case does not warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary review. Not only is this appeal devoid of any question of public or great general interest, the issues raised in this action are moot. More specifically, this action is moot because the two-year term of office at issue - from shortly after the primary election in May 2008 until shortly after the primary election in May 20102 - has expired. (County party central committee members, such as Gallagher, are elected for a two-year term at the primary election held in even-numbered years. See R.C. 3517.03.) The premise of Gallagher's action is that she and others with whom she is aligned in the LCRP were elected in the May 2008 primary and then became the officers of the LCRP Central and 1 Although Appellant's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction includes a section entitled "Explanation of Why this Case is a Case of Public or Great General Interest and Involves a Substantial Constitutional Question," such Memorandum does not assert that any constitutional question, let alone a substantial one, is part of this appeal. The Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee asserts there is no substantial constitutional question before the Court. 2 R.C. 3517.05 provides, "A county central committee shall serve until the sixth day after the date of the declaration of the results by the board of elections of the primary election in that county." This Memorandum uses the phrase "shortly after the primary election" to refer to this statutory time frame. al1aa71v1 Executive Committees for a two-year term (beginning shortly after the May 2008 primary election). Gallagher initiated this action seeking a declaration to that effect and sought an injunction restraining the Lucas County Board of Elections and the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee ("State Central Committee") from taking any action that would change the composition of these committees or their officers during the two-year term. See Complaint, ¶ 133 (seeking, in part, an injunction restraining the State Central Committee from becoming "involved with the resolution of intraparty disputes as to the legitimacy of committees .. '). Significantly, no legal action was ever taken by anyone to oust Gallagher from her Chair position throughout the 2008-2010 term (or at any time). Gallagher's commencement of the instant action was in the nature of a preemptive strike - she sought a court declaration that (1) she validly held her Chair position, (2) others with whom she was aligned validly held their officer positions, and (3) none of them could be removed from such positions by a rival faction of the LCRP, the Lucas County Board of Elections, or the State Central Committee for the duration of the 2008-2010 term. Since that term has ended, this action is moot. Obviously, the Court should not expend its scarce resources to address an issue that is moot. See State ex rel. White v. Kilbane Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395, 2002-Ohio-4848. This is particularly true where, as here, the plaintiff had an opportunity to present evidence at trial and to appeal the adverse decision. Even if this action were not moot, it does not involve a question of public or great general interest. Rather, it involves a single county's intraparty squabble and the dispute resolution mechanism set forth in. R.C. 3517.05 to be used when more than one organized group claims to 4 4114471v1 be the rightful county central or executive committee. This statute certainly does not have broad application to Ohioans or Ohio litigants generally. In fact, even though this statute has been a part of Ohio law for decades, it has been the subject of only a few published decisions (including the decision that is the subject of this appeal). In those instances where it has been cited in a published decision, courts - including this Court in 2010 - have made clear that if more than one organized group claims to be the rightful county central or executive committee, this issue shall be submitted to the state central committee for resolution. See, e.g., State ex rel. Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 1513, 2010-Ohio-930, at ¶118-21; Federspiel v. Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee (1994), 867 F. Supp. 617, 619, affirmed (1996), 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15422. Thus, in the few instances where courts have been called on to address intraparty disputes regarding rightful county central or executive committees, they have consistently turned to the party, initially, to resolve its own dispute. The trial court followed this precedent and the court of appeals affirmed. Gallagher has not cited a single case (and none has been found) which strayed from this approach. Thus, there is no conflict among Ohio's lower courts or federal courts regarding this matter. Given the nature of political part ies, this approach makes utmost sense. Political parties are essentially voluntary associations of persons who act together principally for party and community purposes. Generally, courts are reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of political parties and, therefore, allow them to attempt to resolve their own disputes, whether pursuant to statute or otherwise. See State ex rel. Cain v. Kay (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 15, 18-19; see also Federspiel, 867 F.Supp. 617, 622. ("Even without this statute [R.C. 3517.05], the 4114471v1 Republican Party would have the right to choose between two competing factions as to which one will represent its Party.") Lastly, it is well established that this Court will not indulge in advisory opinions. State ex rel. White v. Kilbane Koch, 96 Ohio St.3d 395, 2002-Ohio-4848, at ¶18. Yet, that is precisely what Gallagher is asking this Court to do. First, she is asking the Court to render an opinion declaring that action which was not taken against her (or anyone else) - namely removal from office - could not have been taken. Second, she is asking this Court to address issues which she admits the lower courts did not address. See Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, pp. 4, 6. Because this Court does not render advisory opinions, it should decline to accept this discretionary appeal. B. Brief Argument in Support of the State Central Committee's Position Regarding Appellant's Propositions of Law In the interest of brevity, this Memorandum Opposing Jurisdiction does not restate Gallagher's numerous and lengthy propositions of law. The State Central Committee's position as to each of these propositions of law is that this action is moot because the relief Gallagher sought below can no longer be granted. The 2008-2010 term has expired and, thus, no court can now protect Gallagher's Chair position or any other officers' positions for that term; nor can a court enjoin any action related to that term. Additionally, as stated by the court of appeals, the applicable standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. "A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless its decision involves more than an error of judgment or law and can be characterized as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." Gallagher v. Lucas County Board of Elections, 6°i Dist. No. L-10-1051, 2010-Ohio-4164, at ¶15 (citing Blakemore v. Blakemore 6 4114471v1 (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219). Gallagher's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction does not address whether the trial court abused its discretion (nor does it urge a different standard of review).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chairman's Report
    2014-2015 Chairman’s Report A Bi-annual report summarizing the organization’s activities in 2014 and 2015. “At the root of everything that we’re trying to accomplish is the belief that America has a mission. We are a nation of freedom, living under God, believing all citizens must have the opportunity to grow, create wealth, and build a better life for those who follow. If we live up to these moral values, we can keep the American dream alive for our children and our grandchildren, and America will remain mankind’s best hope” — Ronald Reagan 1 2 A Message From the Chairman... Dear Fellow Republicans, It is a great time to be a Republican in Cuyahoga County! 2014 was an exciting and busy year as we worked to re- elect our incumbent statewide candidates and further develop our voter engagement efforts with the creation of the Advocacy Council. While the work is constant, it builds a foundation for continued Republican success, such as the 70% of Republican endorsed candidates that were elected to local office in 2015. In 2014, Ohio Governor John Kasich won Cuyahoga County in his gubernatorial re-election; this was the first time Cuyahoga County voted Republican since Senator George Voinovich’s 2004 re-election to the U.S. Senate. Cuyahoga County was a regular campaign stop for many of our incumbent Republican officeholders, including a rally for Governor Kasich with U.S. Senator Rob Portman and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. In the end, winning Cuyahoga County was the icing on the cake for Governor Kasich who won a historic 86 out of 88 Ohio counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Check Ohio Republicans Declare Motherhood Mandatory
    Fact Check Ohio Republicans Declare Motherhood Mandatory Mac still orientate humorously while positivism Yancy europeanizes that victim. Revolutionist Prescott raked his blackball foxes materially. Cardiac and Capetian Gideon sugar-coat while archetypical Mohamed roneo her extractors undeniably and addles dotingly. Trump said schools: california designed for hbcus and fact check ohio republicans declare motherhood mandatory quarantines in check how far it? Sdusd superintendent cindy marten also be heard arguments, ohio democratic senator portman did anyone believes in fact check ohio republicans declare motherhood mandatory vaccines really depends adult will say he would serve, eric schneiderman last. Senate votes Senategov. Do you know that most Democrats are not all fans of every Democratic polition? It was empowering principals and to accomplish there are examples of illinois statute was stored in front of you are. An explosive device is shown outside mount the Republican National Committee office Wednesday Jan Discovery of Pipe Bombs in DC Obscured by Capitol Riot. Can check that declaration of facts and declared that served citizens are? Ohio northern kentucky that fact check ohio republicans declare motherhood mandatory jail for the. Good life for spatial point across california counties to declare a tale probably quite distinct and we also a cursory statement? We Got to Glue America back. Snowflakes, Democratic Party, a European Union executive told Reuters. Individuals intervened on behalf of the Republican Party. They advise do myself through consistent communication with voting centres around that country, extremist dead. Green party and am really sick of both leading parties. In particular story begins with any other arrests, all voters are lobby or not become self serving the fact check ohio republicans declare motherhood mandatory quarantine.
    [Show full text]
  • SENSITIVE Is, MUR NO
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION . ^ 2D!2 j;;in-B ni 1.2 OFFICE v;^ 'z:.zzzz IN THE MATTER OF: C I- ?i i::. COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN CLUB; OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY; OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTV. SENSITIVE is, MUR NO. ^ (0 • •' rr! CJ 2i:~rnr-. Q I. As explained more fully below, the Columbus Metropolitan Club (CMC), ^ May 2$ ^ 2012 violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FEGA), 2 U.S.C. § 441 b(a), by p(«Viding the: Ohio Republican Party'and Ohio Democratic Party, and their presuniptive, presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, respectively, corporate campaign contributions. The Ohio Republican Party and Ohio Democratic Party are also in violation of the FECA because they participated in arranging, and accepting, these unlavi/ful corporate campaign contributions. See 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a)> 2. As explained more fully below, CMC violated the FECA and its implementing regulations by inviting, authorizing and allowing both the Ohio Republican Party and the Ohio Republican Party, through their chairs, Robert t. Bennett and Chris Redfern, respectively, to make campaign-related speeches to an unrestricted audience that included the generai public. See FEC Advisory Opinion 1996-11. CMC accomplished this illegal end by staging a "forum," which closely resembled a debate, between Bennett and Redfern on May 23, 20:1 !2, which was advertised by CMC as "Presidential Politics in O-H-l-O," and which the general public was invited and allowed to attend. Further, CMC filmed (Le., electronically capturing through video and audio recording) the forum in its entirety with plans to post this filming (as described above) on its unrestricted web page, which is open to and.
    [Show full text]
  • March 6, 1973 Time: Unknown Between 8:06 Am and 8:20 Am Location: Oval Office
    -1- NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND MUSEUM Tape Subject Log (rev. May-2010) Conversation No. 869-1 Date: March 6, 1973 Time: Unknown between 8:06 am and 8:20 am Location: Oval Office The President met with Stephen B. Bull. President's schedule -Meeting with Sudanese ministers -Time -Condolences -Scheduling -Meeting with Earl L. Butz on March 6, 1973 Ronald L. Ziegler -Attendance at luncheon -Paul N. ("Pete") McCloskey, Jr. -Presence Bull left at an unknown time before 8:20 am. Conversation No. 869-2 Date: March 6, 1973 Time: Unknown between 8:06 am and 8:20 am Location: Oval Office The President met with an unknown man. Schedule -John W. Dean, III [?] The unknown man left at an unknown time before 8:20 am. -2- NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND MUSEUM Tape Subject Log (rev. May-2010) Conversation No. 869-3 Date: March 6, 1973 Time: Unknown between 8:06 am and 8:20 am Location: Oval Office The President met with Stephen B. Bull. Messages received Diplomats' views -Attendance at meetings -Wives [?] Bull left at an unknown time before 8:20 am. Conversation No. 869-4 Date: March 6, 1973 Time: 8:20 am - 8:24 am Location: Oval Office The President met with H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman. President's meeting with William E. Timmons -Items for discussion -Congressional leaders -Meetings with President -Hugh Scott’s request -President's availability for meetings with Congress members -Haldeman’s guidance for Timmons John D. Ehrlichman's meeting with Hugh Scott and Gerald R. Ford -Desire for meetings with President -Ehrlichman's opinion of meeting An unknown man entered at an unknown time after 8:20 am.
    [Show full text]
  • The Party Ticket States
    Voting Viva Voce UNLOCKING THE SOCIAL LOGIC OF PAST POLITICS How the Other Half (plus) Voted: The Party Ticket States DONALD A. DEBATS sociallogic.iath.virginia.edu How the Other Half (plus) Voted: The Party Ticket States | Donald A. DeBats 1 Public Voting How the Other Half (plus) Voted: The Party Ticket States by The alternative to oral voting was the party-produced ticket system that slowly Donald A. DeBats, PhD came to dominate the American political landscape. In states not using viva voce voting, political parties produced their preferred list of candidates and made Residential Fellow, Virginia Foundation for that list available to voters as a printed “ticket” distributed at each polling the Humanities, place on Election Day. Before Election Day, facsimiles of party tickets appeared University of Virginia in the party-run newspapers. Increasingly often, tickets were mailed to likely Head, American Studies, supporters to remind them of the party’s candidates and how to vote when Flinders University, Australia they came to the polls. The voter came forward from the throng and joined a line or ascended a platform where he was publicly and officially identified, just as in a viva voce election. But instead of reading or reciting a list of names he held out the party-produced Cover and opposite These three Republican Party tickets are from the years of the Civil War and reflect the Party’s rise in the states of the Old Northwest and the far West. All three tickets are brightly colored and are strongly associated with the preservation of the Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell
    Former Ohio Elections Chief Blackwell Brings a Troubled Record on Elections to Fraud Commission J. Kenneth Blackwell, named in May 2017 to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, is perhaps most memorable in political circles for his fraught term as Ohio’s chief election official from 1999 to 2007. In that time, Blackwell became notorious for partisan conflicts, attempts to restrict access to the ballot, and chaotic election administration. Since leaving office, Blackwell served most recently as chief domestic policy advisor on President Trump’s transition team.1 He was also one of the very few current or former election officials to echo President Trump’s false allegation of widespread illegal voting in the 2016 election2 — most, including many Republicans, have disputed that claim. A Cloud of Partisan Conflict When in office, Blackwell earned a reputation for sowing partisan conflict — a challenging dynamic in a position that involved running elections. In 2004, he served as co-chair for President Bush’s re- election campaign in Ohio, a “swing state” where the election he oversaw was vigorously contested — and also campaigned for a “defense of marriage” amendment on the ballot that year. In that same election, Blackwell issued a series of decisions that both restricted access to voting (discussed below) and invited criticism for the appearance and substance of partisanship. Greg Hartmann, the Republican who ran to succeed Blackwell in 2006, called Blackwell’s choice to co-chair the Ohio Bush campaign a mistake.3
    [Show full text]
  • William H. Tucker Papers, 1855-1898, UM-96
    The University of Toledo Archives Manuscript Collection Finding Aid William H. Tucker Papers, 1855 to 1898 UM 96 Size: 1.5 linear feet Provenance: Transfer from Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University, February 23rd, 1998 Access: Open Related Collections: Click here to enter text. Processing Note: Click here to enter text. Condition: Fair to Poor Copyright: The literary rights to this collection are assumed to rest with the person(s) responsible for the production of the particular items within the collection, or with their heirs or assigns. Researchers bear full legal responsibility for the acquisition to publish from any part of said collection per Title 17, United States Code. The Ward M. Canaday Center for Special Collections may reserve the right to intervene as intermediary at its own discretion. Location: R 10/S B; R 1/S C Completed by: Barbara Floyd, February 25th, 1998 William H. Tucker Papers, 1855-1898 Biographical/Historical Sketch William H. Tucker was born in Laporte, Ohio, in Lorain County on October 6th, 1849, to Dr. John A. and Elizabeth (Brush) Tuckers. He attended school in Huron County, the Normal School in Milan (Ohio), and Yale and Cornell Universities. He completed his college education at Baldwin University in Berea, Ohio. In 1874, he moved to Toledo where he took a job with the law firm of Haynes and Potter and was admitted to the bar two years later. He became a law partner of J.T. Green, and the two men developed a large practice over ten years. Tucker practiced on his own after the partnership dissolved, and specialized in real estate and probate matters.
    [Show full text]
  • REPUBLICAN PARTY of DARKE COUNTY, OHIO CONTENTS Page PREAMBLE
    Constitution and By-Laws OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF DARKE COUNTY, OHIO CONTENTS Page PREAMBLE .................................................................1 ARTICLE I : PURPOSES; PLEDGE; ORGANIZATION Section 1: Purposes. .....................................................1 Section 2: Pledge. .......................................................1 Section 3: Governing Bodies. ..............................................1 Section 4: No Implied Consent. ............................................1 ARTICLE II: CENTRAL COMMITTEE Section 1: Composition of the Central Committee. .............................1 Section 2: Central Committee Organizational Meeting. .........................2 Section 3: Meetings. .....................................................2 Section 4: Management and Delegation of Responsibilities. .....................2 Section 5: Vacancies of Candidates and Officeholders. .........................2 Section 6: Subcommittees. ................................................3 ARTICLE III: CENTRAL COMMITTEE OFFICERS Section 1: Qualifications. .................................................4 Section 2: Chairperson. ..................................................4 Section 3: Vice Chairperson. ..............................................5 Section 4: Secretary. ....................................................5 Section 5: Treasurer. ....................................................5 Section 6: Compensation. ................................................5 Section 7: Removal. .....................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Political Seminars for Teachers Sponsored B Taft Institute
    I 1978 THE ROBERT A. TAFT INSTITUTE SEMINAR OF GOVERNMENT REPORT THE UNIVERSITYI![. ··-··· OF TOLEDO.. · . __ l Vol. 6 Political Seminars for Teachers Sponsored b Taft Institute The University of Toledo was one of 36 U.S. 'universitiesthat were given grantsby ·the RobertA. Taft Institute of Government to conduct a seminar in practical politics for schoolteachers. Taft Seminars on the American political system are organized for social studies teachers who teach classes in eivjcs or government in elementary or secondary schools. Participants for the 1978 seminar at the University came from · Ohio, Michigan 1µ1dIllinois. , . Taft Seminars are concerned with helping teachers erihance their un­ derstanding of where decisions are made in government, who makes them and the responsibilities that individual citizens The have for selecting the people who will Taft Seminar was the first meeting· held in the· University's make decisions for them in the' city new Continuing Education Center. Congressional aide Jerry Brown councils,state legislatures and Congress. and John .Gillespie discuss the politics involved in the legislative I process. As Taft Fellows, teachers are given a chance to go beyond the. current in­ During the past summer, more than Five professors froµi the three formation on bow politicsand government 1,000elementary and high school teachers universities (Ohio Wesleyan, Heidelburg, wor)(. Supplying the information is a spent two, three ·and up to six weeks and U'.J') and a high school social studies uniquefaculty. confronting both the theoretical aspects teacher gav.e academicinput. · and the practical realities of the American 'Of the 35 lecturers,, 10 made their first At The University of Toledo, 24 ex­ two-partysystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio's Gerrymandering Problem
    Ohio’s Gerrymandering Problem: Why Haven’t We Fixed This Yet? A Report from the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause Ohio Contents: What is Gerrymandering?.........p.2 Ohio Redistricting Timeline…...p.3 A Short History of Ohio Redistrict- ing……………………………...…..p.4 1992-2002 The last time Ohio almost passed re- form: the 2010 legislative proposal ……………………….……………...p.6 “The Elephant in the Room” the last time Ohio’s congressional districts were drawn ……………………….p.7 “Predictable Results” and how Ohio’s congressional districts are rigged against voters …………………...p.16 1982-1992 1 What is Gerrymandering? Redistricting 101: Why do we redraw districts? • Every ten years the US Census is conducted to measure population changes. • The US Supreme Court has said all legislative districts should have roughly the same population so that everyone’s vote counts equally. This is commonly referred to as “one person, one vote.” • In the year following the Census, districts are redrawn to account for people moving into or out of an area and adjusted so that districts again have equal population and, for US House districts, may change depending on the number of districts Ohio is entitled to have. • While the total number of state general assembly districts is fixed -- 99 Ohio House and 33 Ohio Senate districts -- the number of US House districts allocated to each state may change follow- ing the US Census depending on that state’s proportion of the total US population. For example, following the 2010 Census, Ohio lost two US House seats, going from 18 US House seats in 2002-2012 to 16 seats in 2012-2022.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Contributions & Related Activity Report
    Political Contributions & Related Activity Report 2012 CARTER BECK JACKIE MACIAS ALAN ALBRIGHT SVP & Counsel VP & General Manager Legal Counsel to WellPAC Medicaid JOHN JESSER VP, Provider Engagement & GLORIA MCCARTHY JOHN WILLEY COC EVP, Enterprise Execution & Sr. Director, Efciency Government Relations 2012 WellPAC DAVID KRETSCHMER WellPAC Treasurer SVP, Treasurer & Chief MIKE MELLOH Investment Ofcer VP, Human Resources TRACY WINN Board of Directors Manager, Public Affairs ANDREW MORRISON DEB MOESSNER WellPAC Assistant Treasurer & SVP, Public Affairs President & General Manager Executive Director WellPAC Chairman KY 1 from the Chairman America’s health care system is in the midst of transformative change, and WellPoint is leading the way by making it easier for consumers to access and use it while improving the health of the people we serve. In this new post-reform era, WellPoint’s Public Affairs function is more important than ever as the government expands its regulatory scope into our key lines of business. By 2015, almost 66 percent of the company’s revenue will be paid either in part or entirely by the federal and state government. For this reason, we continue to play an active role in the political process through our Public Affairs efforts, industry memberships and WellPAC, our political action committee. More than 1,875 WellPoint associates provided voluntary nancial support to WellPAC in 2012. Their generosity allowed our PAC to make contributions of more than $780,000 to federal campaigns and $140,000 to state and local campaigns on both sides of the political aisle in 2012. Our participation in the political process helps us develop good working relationships with Members of Congress, as well as key state legislators, in order to communicate WellPoint’s perspective on a range of issues including the cost and quality of today’s health care, the establishment of insurance exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid.
    [Show full text]
  • On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment
    Articles On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment Richard L. Aynest CONTENTS I. ADAMSON, FAIRMAN, AND THE REPUDIATION OF INCORPORATION .......... 63 II. WHO WAS CONFUSED? . 66 III. How "SINGULAR" WERE BINGHAM'S VIEWS? . 74 A. Antislavery Constitutionalism ............................... 74 B. Political and PopularPerspectives ........................... 78 C. Legal Theorists ........................................ 83 1. Judge Farrar....................................... 83 2. Judge Paschal ...................................... 85 3. Dean Pomeroy ...................................... 89 4. Justice Cooley ...................................... 91 IV. LOCAL CONFLiCrS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS ...................... 94 t Associate Dean and Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law. Special acknowledgment is made to Julie Jones, Linda Stiefel, and Linda Stravalaci who, as research assistants through a David L. Brennan Research Fellowship and the University of Akron School of Law Dean's Office, assisted with the research for this article. Akhil R. Amar, Michael Les Benedict, Michael K. Curtis, Paul Finkelman, Harold M. Hyman, Wilson R. Huhn, Hon. Louis F. Oberdorfer, and William D. Rich were kind enough to critique prior drafts of this Article. The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 103: 57 V. INITIAL JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS .............................. 96 VI. CONCLUSION .............................................. 103 Nearly fifty years ago, Professor Charles Fairman published his seminal article, Does the Fourteenth Amendment
    [Show full text]