DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutions and Legislation 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutions and Legislation 1 Section IV CONSTITUTIONS AND LEGISLATION 1. Constitutions STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, 1976-1977 By Albert L. Sturm* FORTY-TWO STATES took some form of official action on proposed changes in their constitutions during 1976-77. Compared with similar activity in the two past biennia, fewer states proposed alterations in their fundamental laws. Notwithstanding some reduction in activity, the level of concern'for modernizing state constitutions remained relatively high. Proposed changes ranged from minor alterations, such as conforming the state documents to the requirements of national law, to proposal and approval in Georgia of an editorial revision of the entire constitution. Three of the four methods of initiating changes in state constitutions expressly authorized by these documents were used to propose amendments and revisions during the biennium: legislative proposal, initiative proposal, and constitutional convention. Tables 2, 3, and 4 summarize salient procedural constitutional requirements for their use. No proposals were originated during the biennium by the fourth method, proposal by constitutional commission, which is expressly authorized only in the Florida constitution. Of major interest and significance during the period, however, was the establishment of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission in 1977 with a mandate to study the constitution and to submit needed changes to the voters in 1978. The work of this body is discussed later in this chapter. In five states, the electorate voted on the question of calling a constitutional convention; three electorates approved the call and two rejected it. Tennessee was the only state in which a constitutional convention was in session during the biennium. Its proposals will be submitted to the voters in 1978. The only proposed amendments to be initiated by a constitutional convention and referred to the electorate during the biennium were 12 proposals of the 1974 New Hampshire Constitutional Convention. The following paragraphs provide summary data on constitutional changes by each of the authorized methods during 1976-77. To facilitate comparison, the analysis follows the same general format used in the last four volumes of The Book of the States. *Dr. Sturm is University Research Professor of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In the preparation of this summary analysis, he was assisted by Mrs. Kaye M. Wright, whose able assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Elections divisions in offices of secretaries of state, legislative service units, and university institutes and bureaus of governmental research provided most of the data for this chapter. 193 194 THE BOOK OF THE STA TES Methods of Constitutional Change and Their Use All state constitutions expressly authorize the legislature to propose changes in these documents; this is by far the most-used technique. With the exception of Delaware, where legislative action only is required, all proposed constitutional changes must be submitted to the voters for their approval or rejection. The constitutional initiative serves as an auxiliary device for proposing limited alterations in the 17 states whose constitutions authorize its use. Constitutional conventions are the traditional method for proposing extensive revisions in the United States, although they may propose, and often have proposed, more limited changes in the form of a single amendment or a series of amendments. In recent years, constitutional commissions have become increasingly popular as staff arms of state lawmaking bodies to study state constitutions and propose needed changes. The functioning of constitutional commissions during the past biennium is the subject of a later section. Table A summarizes state constitutional changes by the three methods of formal initiation used during 1976-77 and the two preceding biennia. It tabulates the totals of proposals, adoptions, percentages of adoptions, and the aggregates for all methods. As- noted previously, 42 states were involved in formal constitutional change during 1976-77. The total number of proposals by all methods, 399, was greater than the 352 of the previous biennium, but substantially fewer than the 530 proposed during 1972-73. The percentage of adoptions during 1976-77 diminished slightly from 72.7 to 70.2, but was nearly one percentage point higher than the 69.4 for 1972-73. Table A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES BY METHOD OF INITIATION 1972-73, 1974-75, 1976-77 Number of states involved Total proposals Total adopted Percentage adopted Method of 1972- 1974- 7976- 1972- 1974- 1976- 1972- 1974- 1976- 1972- 1974- 1976- initiation 72 75 77 73 75 77 73 75 77 73 75 77 All methods 47 48 42 530 352 399 368 256 280 69.4 72.7 70.2 Legislative proposal 46 47 42 497 332 369 356 244 273 71.6 73.5 74.0 Constitutional initiative ... 7 7 8 16 13 18 3 8 3 18.8 61.5 16.7 Constitutional convention . 4 2 1 17 7 12 9 4 4 52.9 57.1 33.3 Legislative Proposals As has always occurred, during 1976-77 state legislatures initiated by far the greatest number of constitutional changes—92.5 percent of the total, and all 42 states involved in altering their constitutions made use of this method. The increased number of legislative proposals during the biennium not only reflects the continuing need to update state constitutions, but also state legislative awareness of the need for constitutional modernization and willingness of legislatures to take appropriate action. In 15 states the electorates approved all legislative proposals (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah); in four states (Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and South Dakota) none was approved. In two other states (Maryland and South Carolina), the voters approved all legislative amendments of general statewide effect. CONSTITUTIONS AND LEGISLA TION 195 but rejected some local amendments. The total number of legislative proposals ranged from one each in six states (Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Utah) to 95 (28 general and 67 local) in Georgia. The tabulation below indicates the number of proposals and adoptions in the states that made greatest use of this method during 1976-77. State Proposals Adoptions Alabama 9 general, 32 local 6 general, 24 local California 19 general 14 general Georgia 28 general, 67 local 27 general, 60 local Maryland 14 general, 7 local 14 general, 4 local Nevada 10 general 6 general Ohio 19 general 9 general Oregon 15 general 9 general South Carolina 3 general, 10 local 3 general, 3 local Constitutional Initiative Proposals The constitutional initiative is authorized in 17 state constitutions and has limited use. Its principal purpose is to propose limited changes that have substantial popular support when lawmaking bodies fail to act. The initiative technique is inappropriate for proposing general revisions or extensive amendments. Often initiative proposals that originate by popular petition lack the substantial popular support necessary to assure their success. Thus the rate of adoption is usually substantially lower than that of legislative proposals. Table A indicates that of the 18 initiative measures proposed in eight states during 1976- 77, only three were adopted, or a dismal 16.7 percent. The numbers proposed and adopted in each state were as follows: Arkansas (1-0)^ Colorado (3-0), Florida (1-1), Michigan (2-0), Missouri (3-1), Montana (1-0), Ohio (6-1), and Oklahoma (1-0). In Florida, where the constitutional initiative was used for the first time, the amendment popularly known as the "sunshine amendment" was promoted by the governor after the legislature failed several times to approve it.' The 16.7 percent adoption rate of initiative proposals for 1976-77 was far belowthe 61.5 percent of adoptions during 1974-75, and the 18.8 percent during 1972-73. Substantive Changes Table B classifies constitutional changes during 1976-77 and the two preceding biennia by subject matter. 2 As in the four immediately preceding volumes of The Book of the States, all proposals are grouped in two major categories: those of general statewide applicability, which includes all proposed changes in all except four states; and proposed local amendments in Alabama (32), Georgia (67), Maryland (7), and South Carolina (10), which apply to a single political subdivision or a restricted number of such units. Proposals of general statewide applicability are further classified under subject matter headings that conform broadly to the principal functional areas of state constitutions. The last group includes proposals for general constitutional revision. Percentage of adoptions for proposals of statewide applicability decreased in 1976-77 to 66.8 percent compared with 67.6 percent of adoptions during 1974-75 and 70.7 percent during 1972-73. Table B indicates that by far the largest number of proposed changes during each of the three biennia was in the general area of state and local finance, including taxation, debt, and financial administration. The total of 92 proposals was substantially greater than the 67 proposals during 1974-75, but fewer than the 109 proposals during the preceding biennium. 196 THE BOOK OF THE STATES Table B SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS PROPOSED AND ADOPTED 1976-77 Total proposed Total adopted Percentage adopted 1972- 1974- 1976- 1972- 1974- 1976- 1972- 1974- 1976- Subject matter 73 75 77 73 75 77 73 75 77 Proposals of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court W Cover
    No. 13-1314 In The Supreme Court Of The United States ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, APPELLANT, v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AMICUS BRIEF OF THE STATES OF WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, HAWAII, IDAHO, MASSACHUSETTS, MISSISSIPPI, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General NOAH G. PURCELL Solicitor General REBECCA RIPOLI GLASGOW Deputy Solicitor General Counsel of Record JAY D. GECK Deputy Solicitor General 1125 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98504-0100 360-664-3027 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 4 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5 A. The States, As Sovereigns, Are Entitled To Structure Their Lawmaking Processes As They See Fit .................................. 5 B. The Elections Clause Does Not Disturb The States’ Sovereign Authority To Allocate Lawmaking Power To Entities Other Than The Legislature .............................. 8 C. The Arizona Legislature’s Argument Threatens States’ Diverse Redistricting Systems, Which Often And For Good Reason Place Significant Power Outside The Legislature ................................................ 10 1. Some States Give Their Courts Authority To Redistrict
    [Show full text]
  • Blaine's Name in Vain: State Constitutions, School Choice, and Charitable Choice
    Denver Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 Article 4 December 2020 Blaine's Name in Vain: State Constitutions, School Choice, and Charitable Choice Jill Goldenziel Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Jill Goldenziel, Blaine's Name in Vain: State Constitutions, School Choice, and Charitable Choice, 83 Denv. U. L. Rev. 57 (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. BLAINE'S NAME IN VAIN?: STATE CONSTITUTIONS, SCHOOL CHOICE, AND CHARITABLE CHOICE JILL GOLDENZIELf ABSTRACT This article explores the growing controversy over "no-funding pro- visions, " state constitutionalprovisions that restrict statefunding of reli- gious institutions. These provisions, allegedly rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry, may threaten state implementation of school choice programs and faith-based initiatives involving public funding of religious social service organizations. This article argues that these no-funding provi- sions, which are commonly termed "Blaine Amendments," "Little Blaines," or "Baby Blaines," are often unrelated to the failed federal Blaine Amendment, and do not always share the federal amendment's infamous anti-Catholic history. In the first study of its type, this article surveys the language and history of constitutionalprovisions prohibiting funding of religious institutions in allfifty states, and details the constitu- tional history andjudicial interpretationof these provisions in eight rep- resentative states: Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Colorado, Michi- gan, Vermont, and Maine. This article concludes that the fates of school vouchers andfaith-based initiatives will not rest on the so-called "Blaine Amendments," but on the ideological and jurisprudentialtendencies of state judiciaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 the Constitutional Framework of Ohio State Government
    Chapter 1 The Constitutional Framework of Ohio State Government Image courtesy of the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board Advisory and Review Square Capitol the of courtesy Image Statehouse Map Room What is a Constitution? A constitution is the fundamental law of a state or nation. It is a written document agreed to by the people and thus derives its authority from those it governs. A constitution establishes the nature and character of the state or national government. It organizes government into various branches, prescribes their powers, and specifies the extent to which these powers may be exercised. The Ohio Constitution is the fundamental law of Ohio and is subject only to the restrictions of the United States Constitution, acts of Congress, and international treaties to which the United States is a party. It may be changed only by voter approval of proposed amendments. Like the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution organizes government into three separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each branch is independent of the other two and has defined powers and responsibilities. All laws enacted by the legislative branch must comply with the Constitution’s provisions; those that do not are unenforceable. LSC A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators Page | 1 Chapter 1: The Constitutional Framework of the Ohio State Government Ohio’s first constitution was approved by Congress in 1802 as a first step to Ohio’s admission to the Union as a state. Ohio’s second constitution, the Constitution of 1851, as subsequently amended, is today’s fundamental law of Ohio. A constitution is the fundamental law of a state or nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio's State Test High School American Government
    OHIO’S STATE TEST HIGH SCHOOL AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TEACHER’S GUIDE REVISED WITH UPDATED TEST ITEM SPECS AND SAMPLE TEST ITEMS - AUGUST 2018 COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT www.ccsoh.us/socialstudies Ohio’s State Test: High School American Government Teacher’s Guide 1 Test Specifications: American Government Introduction The American Government Test Specifications provide an overview of the structure and content of the test. This overview includes a description of the test design as well as information on the types of items that will appear on the test. A test blueprint is included that identifies the range and distribution of items and points, grouped into various categories. The specifications also provide specific guidelines for the development of all items used for the American Government test. This document is intended to be a resource not only for item writers and test designers, but for Ohio educators and other stakeholders who are interested in a deeper understanding of the test. General Description of the American Government Test In 2010 Ohio adopted new rigorous academic content standards for American Government. A model curriculum based on these new standards was adopted in 2011. An achievement assessment that aligns to the new standards and model curriculum is mandated by Ohio Revised Code 3301.079. The assessment will be administered as a two-part test, in a computer-delivered format, to measure progress toward the standards and to provide information to teachers and administrators. Test Design The structure of the American Government Test will consist of two parts that will be given near the end of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • OCT 24 2066 MARCIA J Nl^Rqgft C Sllpreme T;(;T^Id? ^F TABLE of CONTENTS
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MELISSA ARBINO, Case No. 2006-1212 Petitioner, -vs- JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Respondents. AMICUS BRIEF OF THE OHIO CHAPTER OF THE AMERCIAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF CERTIFIED QUESTION NO. 1 Bemard K. Bauer, Esq. (0016290) Julie A. Callsen, Esq. (0062287) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) BERNARD K. BAUER CO., L.P.A. Benjamin C. Sasse, Esq. (0072856) 410 W. Sandusky Street TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST P.O. Box 932 1150 Huntington Building, 925 Eudid Avenue Findlay, OH 45839 Cleveland, OH 44115-1475 Telephone: (419) 423-2673 Telephone: (216) 696-3536 FAX: (419) 423-2127 FAX: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: bauertrial@turbosurf net COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS, COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & OHIO CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND ORTHO- McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. Janet G. Abaray, Esq. (0002943) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) Stephen P. Carney, Esq. (0063460) Melanie S Bailey, Esq. (0075821) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) Calvin 8, Tregre, Esq. (0073454) Douglas R. Cole, Esq. (0070665) BURG, SIMPSON, ELDREDGE, HERSH Holly J. Hunt, Esq. (0075069) & JARDINE, P.C. Sharon A. Jennings, Esq. (0055501) 312 Walnut Street, Suite 2090 James M. Petro, Esq. (0022096) Cincinnati, OH 45202 Frank M. Strigad, Esq. (0078377) Telephone: (513) 852-5600 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FAX: (513) 852-5611 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Robert S. Peck, Esq. Telephone: (614) 466-2872 Stephen B. Pershing, Esq. FAX: (614) 728-7592 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION 1050 315'Street, NW COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, Washington, DC 20007-4499 STATE OF OHIO Telephone: (202) 944-2874 FAX: (202) 965-0920 ^^[^ciu/ COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER, MELISSA ABARINO OCT 24 2066 MARCIA J Nl^rqGFt C SllPREME t;(;t^id? ^F TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement of the Facts ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Executive Veto in the Ohio Constitution* Alonzo H
    The Ohio State University LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 2 MARCI, 1936 NUMBER 2 HISTORY OF THE EXECUTIVE VETO IN THE OHIO CONSTITUTION* ALONZO H. TuTTLEt The convention which met in 1787 to draft a federal con- stitution never seriously questioned the wisdom of providing for an executive veto and this in spite of the fact that only four of the states had at that time any such provision in their con- stitutions. Only two members, Franklin and Gorham seemed to have spoken against any veto power whatever, while a few, Wilson, Reed, Hamilton and Gouveneur Morris argued for an absolute veto power. The real difference of opinion, however, was between those who favored a qualified veto power in the President alone and those who favored joining with the Presi- dent a suitable number of the judiciary in the exercise of this power: Realizing that a veto power would be given, Wilson and Madison, probably the two ablest members of the conven- tion, led the fight for the joining of the judiciary and the execu- tive. Not satisfied with the indecisive vote of four states to three against their proposal, they brought the matter up again and again, and even after the matter had seemingly been settled for good, late in the proceedings of the convention Madison * The legal aspects of the "Executive Veto" will be treated in an article by Professor Tuttle to appear in a succeeding number of the OHiO STATE UNrVERSITY LAw JOURNAL. t Professor of Law, Ohio State University. 99 100 LAW JOURNAL - MARCH, 1936 proposed that all laws of Congress should be submitted to the President and the Supreme Court separately.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of Ohio, 1802
    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 51 Issue 3 Symposium: The Ohio Constitution - Article 16 Then and Now 2004 Constitution of Ohio, 1802 Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1802 Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1802, Constitution of Ohio, 1802 , 51 Clev. St. L. Rev. 665 (2004) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol51/iss3/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTION OF OHIO, 1802 ARTICLE I OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER Section 1 In whom legislative power vested. 2 Census; apportionment of representatives; number of representatives. 3 When chosen. 4 Qualifications of representatives. 5 Senators; when and how chosen. 6 Number of senators, and how apportioned. 7 Qualifications of senators. 8 Powers of each house; quorum. 9 Journals, and yeas and nays. 10 Right of members to protest. 11 Rules, and right of punishment and expulsion. 12 Vacancies in either house, how filled. 13 Privilege of members from arrest, and of speech. 14 Contempts; how punished. 15 When sessions to be public, and power of adjournment. 16 Where bills to originate. 17 How often bills to be read; to be signed by the speakers. 18 Style of laws. 19 Salaries of officers. 20 Exclusion from office. 21 Appropriations. 22 How receipts, etc., to be published.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Constitution Table of Contents
    This page intentionally left blank. The Ohio Constitution Table of Contents Preamble .........................................................................................1 Article I: Bill of Rights ...................................................................1 Article II: Legislative ......................................................................6 Article III: Executive ....................................................................23 Article IV: Judicial ........................................................................29 Article V: Elective Franchise ........................................................36 Article VI: Education ....................................................................37 Article VII: Public Institutions ......................................................39 Article VIII: Public Debt and Public Works .................................40 Article IX: Militia .........................................................................94 Article X: County and Township Organizations ...........................95 Article XI: Apportionment ............................................................98 Article XII: Finance and Taxation ..............................................106 Article XIII: Corporations ...........................................................109 Article XIV: Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board ...................110 Prior Article XIV: Jurisprudence.................................................112 Article XV: Miscellaneous ..........................................................112
    [Show full text]
  • Let Your VOICE Be Heard! 2011-12 KBA Officers and Board of Governors
    Let your VOICE be Heard! 2011-12 KBA Officers and Board of Governors PRESIDENT DISTRICT 2 (CON’T.) DISTRICT 10 Rachael K. Pirner Rep. Paul T. Davis Jeffery A. Mason (316) 630-8100 Wichita (785) 843-7674 Lawrence (785) 890-6588 Goodland [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PRESIDENT-ELECT DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 11 Lee M. Smithyman Eric L. Rosenblad Nancy Morales Gonzalez (913) 661-9800 Overland Park (620) 232-1330 Pittsburg (816) 936-5788 Kansas City, Mo. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] VICE PRESIDENT DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 12 Dennis D. Depew William E. Muret William E. Quick (620) 325-2626 Neodesha (620) 221-7200 Winfield (816) 360-4335 Kansas City, Mo. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SECRETARY-TREASURER DISTRICT 5 AT-LARGE GOVERNOR Gerald L. Green Terri S. Bezek Gwynne Harris Birzer (620) 662-0537 Hutchinson (785) 296-2639 Topeka (316) 265-7741 Wichita [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Natalie G. Haag KDJA REPRESENTATIVE Glenn R. Braun (785) 438-3121 Topeka Hon. Richard M. Smith (785) 625-6919 Hays [email protected] (913) 795-2622 Mound City [email protected] DISTRICT 6 [email protected] YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION PRESIDENT Bruce W. Kent KBA DELEGATE TO ABA Vincent M Cox (785) 556-2019 Manhattan Sara S. Beezley (785) 232-7761 Topeka [email protected] (620) 724-4111 Girard [email protected] DISTRICT 7 [email protected] DISTRICT 1 Matthew C. Hesse KBA DELEGATE TO ABA Gregory P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the State of Ohio - with Amendments Proposed by the Constitutional Convention of 1912 and Approved by the People ARTICLE I
    The Constitution of the State of Ohio - With Amendments Proposed by the Constitutional Convention of 1912 and Approved by the People ARTICLE I. SECTION -..- 31. Compensation .of members and officers of general assembly; BILL OF RIGHTS. perquisites. SECNON 32. Divorce, and judicial power. .1. Inalienable rights. 33. Direct lien upon property. ,2. Where political power vested; special privileges. 34. Minimum wage. 3. Right of petition ; instruction. 35. Workmen's compensation. 4 Bearing arms; standing armies; military power. 36. Conservation of natural resources. 5. Trial by jury. 37. Eight hour day 011 public work. 6. Slavery and involuntary servitude. 38. Removal ,of officers. 7. Religious liberty, etc. ; test; education. 39. ' Expert witnesses. 8. Habeas corpus. 40. Guaranteeinc land titles. 9. Bail ; punishment. 41. Prison labor. 10. Trial for crimes; witnesses. 11. Freedom of speech; libel. ARTICLE 111. 12. Transportation ; forfeiture. EXECUTIVE. 13. Quarters of soldiers. 14. Search warrants. 1. Executive departnxent. 15. Imprisonment for debt. 2. Term of office. 16. Remedy in courts. 3. Election returns. 17. Hereditary honors, etc. 4. Same subject. 18. Suspension of laws. 5. Executive power vested in governor. 19. Private property inviolate, unless, etc. 6. He may require written information, etc. 19a. Damages recoverable. 7. Ile shall recommend measures, etc. 20. Powers not delegated. 8. When and how lie may convene the general assembly; busi- ness limited. ARTICLE 11. 9. When lie may atliorl-11 the general assembly. 10. Co11i:iiander-iil-chicf. - LEGISLATIVE. 11. I?C~~~CVI??.i>;lrtlon~, C~C. 12. -l-lie seal of the state. 1. Legislative power in senate, house and people.
    [Show full text]
  • SEP I a Z007 CLERK of COURT SUPREME COURT of OHIO
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio CASE NO. City of Bay Village, ex rel. Committee for the Charter Amendment for ORIGINAL ACTION IN an Elected Law Director MANDAMUS Lucian A. Dade, Chairperson 584 Bradley Rd. VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN Bay Village, Ohio 44140 MANDAMUS and EXPEDITED ELECTION CASE Lucian A. Dade 584 Bradley Rd. Bay Village, Oliio 44140 and Karen Dade 584 Bradley Rd. Bay Village, Ohio 44140 and Eric Hansen 30401Edni1 Dr. Bay Village, Ohio 44140 Relators V. City of Bay Village 350 Dover Center Rd. Bay Village, Ohio 44140 Upon: Mayor Deborah L. Sutherland and MU) Joan T. Kemper SEP i a Z007 Clerk of Council City of Bay Village CLERK OF COURT 350 Dover Center Rd. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Bay Village, Ohio 44140 and City of Bay Village City Council 350 Dover Center Rd. Bay Village, Ohio 44140 Upon: Brian A. Cruse, President Respondents ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS EXPEDITED ELECTION CASE RELATORS' VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS Gerald W. Phillips Attorney for Relators Phillips & Co., L.P.A. P.O. Box 269 461 Windward Way Avon Lake, Ohio 44012 (440) 933-9142 Fax No. (440) 930-0747 Reg. No. 0024804 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio ) CASE NO. City of Bay Village, ex rel. Committee for the Charter Amendment for ) ORIGINAL ACTION IN an Elected Law Director ) MANDAMUS Lucian A. Dade, Chairperson, et a] VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN Relators ) MANDAMUS V. EXPEDITED ELECTION CASE City of Bay Village et al Respondents PARTIES 1. Relator the Committee for the Charter Amendment for an Elected Law Director, is the duly authorized committee designated for the Charter Amendment Petitions (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Case No. 2008-2018
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OHIO GROCERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case No. 2008-2018 V. On Appeal from the Franklin County RICHARD A. LEVIN, Ohio Tax Court Of Appeals, Commissioner, Tenth Appellate District Defendant-Appellant. Court of Appeals Case No. 07AP-813 SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE OHIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES Richard Cordray (0038034) Stephen E. Chappelear (0012205) Attorney General of Ohio HAHN LOESER + PARKS LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1400 Benjamin C. Mizer (0083089) Columbus, Ohio 43215 Solicitor General Telephone: (614) 221-0240 Stephen P. Carney (0063460) Facsimile: (614) 221-5909 Elisabeth A. Long (0084128) E-mail: [email protected] Deputy Solicitors Lawrence D. Pratt (0021870) Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Julie Brigner (0066367) OHIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION Assistant Attorneys General 30 East Broad Street, 17"' Floor Charles R. Saxbe (0021952) Columbus, OH 43215 Donald C. Brey (0021965) Telephone: 614-466-8980 Gerhardt A. Gosne111I (0064919) Facsimile: 614-466-5087 CHESTER, WILCOX & SAXBE LLP [email protected] 65 E. State Street Suite 1000 Counsel For Defendant-Appellant Columbus, OH 43215 RICHARD A. LEVIN, OHIO TAX Telephone: 614-221-4000 COMMISSIONER Facsimile: 614-221-4012 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees OHIO GROCERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. MAY CLERK ®F COURT Col - 136249.1 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO APPENDIX Exhibit A N. R. Howard, Sales Tax in Ohio Wins After Fight, N.Y. Times, Dec. 16, 1934 ................................................................ 1 Exhibit B Ohio is Expected to End Tax on Food, N.Y. Times, Sept. 18, 1936. 2 Exhibit C Andrew Chamberlain & Patrick Fleenor, Tax Pyramiding: The Economic Consequences Of Gross Receipts Taxes, Tax Foundation Special Report, Dec.
    [Show full text]