Upretrye (Court of ®Bin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
iJit tlje ^&upretrYe (Court of ®bin S"I'A-I'F. ex rel. OHIO CHRISTIAN . Case No. 2009-1648 ALLIANCE, et al., Original Action Relators, vs. TED STRICKLAND, et al., Respondents. RESPONDRNTS' iYIO1'ION FOR J[JDGMEN'P ON THE PLEADINGS 1'INIOTHY J. GRENDELI,* (0005827) RICHARD CORDRAY (0038034) *C'ounsel ofRec•ord Attorne., General of Ohio 6640 Harris Road Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147 BENJAMIN C. MIZ.ER* (0083089) 440-729-6145 Solicitor General 614-220-0833 fax * Counsel qfRecord AL.EXANDRA T. SCHIMMER (0075732) Counsel for Relators Chief Deputy Solicitor General Ohio Clu•istian Alliance, Ronald Amstutz,, RICIIARD N. COGLIANESE (0066830) Jolm Adatns, and Seth Morgan PEARL M. CHIN (0078810) LUCAS R. BLOCHER (0079239) MICHAEL J. SCHULBR (0082390) ROBER"I' F. MCCARTIIY (0083829) Assistant Attonieys General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980 614-466-5087 fax benjamin.rnizer@ohioattorneygeiieraLgov Counsel for Respondetits ,ittt tfje *upreme Court o ® bio S"I'A7'E ex rel. 01110 CIIRISTIAN Case No. 2009-1648 ALLIANCE, et al., Original Action Relators, vs. TED STRICKLAND, et al., Respondents. RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TIMO111Y J. GRENDELL* (0005827) RICHARD CORDRAY (0038034) *(.'ounsel of Record Attorney General of Ohio 6640 Harris Road Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147 BENJAMIN C. MIZER* (0083089) 440-729-6145 Solicitor General 614-220-0833 fax *Cozinsel of Record ALEXANDRA T. SCHIMMER (0075732) Counsel for Relators Chief Deputy Solicitor General Ohio Christian Alliance, Ronald Amstutz, RICHARD N. COGLIANESE (0066830) John Adanis, and Seth Morgan PEARL M. CHIN (0078810) LUCAS R. BLOCHER (0079239) MICIIAEL J. SCHULI:R (0082390) ROBERT P. MCCARTHY (0083829) Assistant Attorneys General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980 614-466-5087 fax [email protected] Counsel for Respondents Pursuant to S. Ct. Prac. R. X(5) and Civ.R. 12(C), Respondents-Governor Ted Strickland; the Ohio Lottery Commission, and the Director of the Ohio Lottery Commission, Kathleen Burke-move for judgment on the pleadings. A supporting niemorandum follows. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD A. CORDRAY (0038034) Atprney General of Ohio EIqMM1N1C. MIZ UR (0083089) olicitor General tCounsel of Record ALEXANDRA T. SCHIMMER (0075732) Chief Deputy Solicitor General RICIIARD N. COGLIAt^IESE ( 0066830) PEARL M. CHIN (0078810) LUCAS R. BLOCHER (0079239) MICHAEL J. SCIIULER (0082390) ROBERT F. MCCARTHY (0083829) Assistant Attorneys General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980 614-466-5087 fax [email protected] Counsel for Respondents 3iJT thE upreme Court 0 ® STATE cx rel. ORIO CHRISTIAN Case No. 2009-1648 ALLIANCE, et al., Original Action Relators, vs. 1'ED STRICKLAND, et al., Respondents. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR JUD(:MENT ON THE PLEADINGS TIMOTHY J. GRENDELL* (0005827) RICHARD CORDRAY (0038034) *C'ounsel ofRecorcd Attorney General of Ohio Grendell & Simon Co., LPA 6640 Harris Road BENJAMIN C. MIZER* (0083089) Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147 Solicitor General 440-729-6145 *Counsel ofRecord 614-220-0833 fax ALEXANDRA T. SCHIMMER (0075732) Chief Deputy Solicitor General Counsel for Relator•s. RICHARD N. COGLIANESE (0066830) Ohio Christian Alliance, Ronald Amshztz, PEARL M. CFIIN (0078810) John Adams, and Seth Morgan LUCAS R. BLOCIIER (0079239) MICIIAEL J. SCHULER (0082390) ROBERT F. MCCARTIIY (0083829) Assistant Attorneys General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-466-8980 614-466-5087 fax benjamin.mizer a)ohioattorneygeneral.gov Counsel for Respondents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i ... 'I'ABLE OF AU'I'HORITIES ........... .............................................................................................. m INTRODUCT I ON ...........................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF T11E CASF AND FACTS ......................... .......................... ................. ............ 2 A. The long history of lottery and gambling regulations in the State reveals tliat Ohioans have disfavored private gambling interests but approved of State-run lottery activities . ..............................................................................................................................2 B. On a bipartisan vote, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, the Budget Bill for fiscal years 2010-2011, which seeks to raise and appropriate revenue through the installation of video lottery terminals at seven Ohio racetracks .......................3 C. LetOhioVote.org filed a petition for writ of mandamus to subject the VLT Provisions to referendum . ... ...................................................................................................................8 D. The Ohio Policy Roundtable filed a complaint for deciaratory judgment alleging that VLT implementation is unconstitutional .............................................................................9 E. The Ohio Christian Alliance filed a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging that VL'1' implementation is unconstitutional ......................................................................................9 STANDARD OF REVIEW . ..........................................................................................................10 ARG UMENT .................................................................................................................................12 A. The VLT Provisions satisfy the single-subject rule of the Ohio Constitution ...................12 B. The General Assembly complied witli the three-considerations requirement of Article 11, § 15(C) when it cnacted the VLT Provisions ....................................................16 1. The VL"1' Provisions dic( not vitally alter the Budget Bill's subject matter because they related to the same conunon ptiupose as the original appropriation measures . .................................................... ...... .......... .......... ..... .......... .......... ............ .17 2. 'I'he VLT Provisions are consistent with the purpose of the three-considerations ......21 rute because they were subject to vigorous public debate before their adoption. C. The State's implementation of VI,Ts does not create an itnpeimissible lending of credit or joint ownership uncter Article VIII, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution .......................23 1. The VL'T Provisions and regulations do not lend credit to private iirterests . .............24 2. The VLT Provisions and regulations do not amount to joint ownership in violation of the Ohio Constitution ..............................................................................27 3. The VLT Provisions and regulations are consistent with the purpose of Article VIII, § 4 . .....................................................................................................................31 D. Relators cannot demonstrate that the Governor has violated his duty to "see that the laws are faithfully executed" tmder Article 111, § 6 . ..........................................................32 E. The 50% commission payable to VLT agents is not derived from "net proceeds" and therefore does not violate Article XV, § 6 ofthe Ohio Constitution .................................33 F. Ohio Constitution Article XV, § 6 permits the operation of VLTs . ..................................40 G. The General Assembly's decision to authorize VLTs in the Budget Bill, thereby freeing up general revenue funds for other purposes, does not violate Article XV, § 6 of the Ohio Constitution ......................................................... ............................................ 47 CONCLUSION ................... ..................... ...................................................................................... 50 CERTIFICATE OF SF.RV ICS ...... ................................................................................unnumbered APPENDIX OF EXHIBCt'S Directive to the Ohio Lottery, Implementing Video Lottery Terminals (July 13, 2009) :............................................................................................................... Ex. A Am. Sub. II.B. 1, at 1796 ................................................................................................ Ex. B Am. Sub. I3.B. 1, at 2797 ................................................................................................ Ex. C Am. Sub. H.B. 1, § 305.10, at 2866 ................................................................................ Ex. D VLT Rules........................................................................................................................ Ex. E Executive Order 2009-17A, Immediate Adoption and Amendment of Rules to Implement Video Lottery Terminals (Aug. 18, 2009) .....................................................Ex. F House and Senate Journals .......................................................................................Exs. G, H ii TABLE OF AUTFIORITIES Cases Page(s) Al Johnson Constr. Co. v. Kosydar (1975), 42 Ol»o St.2d 29 ...................................................................................................................31 Alter v. Cincinnati (1897), 56 Ohio St. 47 .......................................................................................................................28