Aka Ohioans Against Corporate : Bailouts, Et Al., : Case No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed November 13, 2019 - Case No. 2019-1447 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, LLC, : aka Ohioans Against Corporate : Bailouts, et al., : Case No. 2019-1447 : vs. : Certified Questions of State Law : From Federal Court Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State, : et al. : : MEMORANDUM OF AMICUS CURIAE FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP. IN SUPPORT OF OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE BUT SUGGESTING THAT THE COURT DEFER ANSWERING CERTIFIED STATE LAW QUESTIONS UNTIL IT DETERMINES THRESHOLD REFERENDUM EXEMPTION ISSUE (Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 9.05(A)(2)) John W. Zeiger (0010707) David R. Langdon (0067046) Counsel of Record LANGDON LAW LLC Stuart G. Parsell (0063510) 8913 Cincinnati-Dayton Rd. Zachary C. Maciaszek (0097751) West Chester, Ohio 45069 ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP Telephone: (513) 577-7380 41 South High Street, Suite 3500 [email protected] Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 365-9900 Curt C. Hartman (0064242) Facsimile: (614) 365-7900 THE LAW FIRM OF CURT C. HARTMAN [email protected] 7394 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8 [email protected] Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 Telephone: (513) 379-2923 Counsel for Amicus Curiae [email protected] FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. Patrick M. Quinn (0081692) Bridget C. Coontz (0072919) BRUNNER QUINN Ann Yackshaw (0090623) 35 North Fourth Street, Suite 200 Assistant Attorney General Columbus, Ohio 43215 Section Chief, Constitutional Offices Telephone: (614) 241-5550 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor [email protected] Columbus, OH 43215-3428 Telephone: (614) 466-2872 Counsel for Ohioans Against Corporate [email protected] Bailouts, David J. Eckert, Brandon Sean Lynaugh, and Trevor J. Vessels Counsel for Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose Andrew D.M. Miller (0074515) Christopher P. Finney (0038998) Lara N. Baker-Morrish (0063721) Brian R. Shrive (0088980) Assistant City Attorneys FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 LAW ZACH KLEIN, CITY ATTORNEY Cincinnati, Ohio 45245 77 North Front Street, Fourth Floor Telephone: (513) 943-6650 Columbus, Ohio 43215 [email protected] Telephone: (614) 645-7385 [email protected] Counsel for Zack Klein, as City Attorney of Additional Counsel for Ohioans Against Columbus, Ohio Corporate Bailouts, David J. Eckert, Brandon Sean Lynaugh, and Trevor J. Vessels ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF AMICUS INTEREST .......................................................................................2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................4 A. The Enactment of H.B. 6 ...............................................................................................4 B. FES Files Petition Challenge Against The Committee’s Illegal Referendum Petition On H.B. 6 ...............................................................................4 C. The Committee Failed To Gain The Support Of A Sufficient Number Of Ohioans On Its Referendum Petition By The October 21, 2019 Deadline And Resorts To Federal Litigation Seeking Additional Time ..................5 THERE IS NO RIGHT OF REFERENDUM ON H.B. 6................................................................6 A. H.B. 6 Imposes A “Tax Levy” Under The Plain Meaning Of Ohio Const. Art. II, §1d And, Thus, Is Exempt From A Referendum ...............................................6 B. The Substance Of The Charges Levied By H.B. 6 Includes Each Of The Characteristics Of A Tax Recognized By This Court ....................................................9 C. Tax Experts, The Committee Itself, and Other Opponents of H.B. 6 Acknowledge That It Imposes A “Tax” ......................................................................12 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14 CERTFICATE OF SERVICE........................................................................................................16 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................. A-1 Affidavit of Richard D. Pomp ......................................................................................... A-2 Affidavit of James R. Landers ...................................................................................... A-23 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Ahmad v. AK Steel Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-4082 ................................................ 1 Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948 ........................................... 1 City of Cleveland v. State, __Ohio St. 3d__, 2019-Ohio-3820 ....................................................... 7 Drees Co. v. Hamilton Twp., 132 Ohio St.3d 186, 2012-Ohio-2370.............................................. 9 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n, 36 Cal. App.5th 279 (2019) ....................................................... 7 National Fed'n of Indp. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) ...................................................... 9 Peter v. Parkinson, 83 Ohio St. 36 (1910) ...................................................................................... 7 State ex rel. Keller v. Forney, 108 Ohio St. 463 (1923) ................................................................. 9 OHIO CONSTITUTION Article II, § 1c ................................................................................................................................. 1 Article II, § 1d ........................................................................................................................ passim Article II, § 1g ................................................................................................................................. 5 STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE BILLS R.C. 2315.20 ................................................................................................................................... 1 R.C. 3519.01(B)………………………………………………………………………………. 1, 3 R.C. 3706.41(A) .......................................................................................................................... 3, 4 R.C. 3706.45(B) .............................................................................................................................. 3 R.C. 3706.46(A) .............................................................................................................................. 4 R.C. 3706.49 ................................................................................................................................... 4 R.C. 3706.53 ................................................................................................................................... 4 H.B. 6 ..................................................................................................................................... passim iv I. INTRODUCTION “A hallmark of judicial restraint is to rule only on those cases that present an actual controversy. To do otherwise -- to simply answer a hypothetical question merely for the sake of answering it -- would make this court nothing more than an advisory board.” [Ahmad v. AK Steel Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-4082, ¶ 3 (O’Connor, J., concurring) This hallmark of judicial restraint was the precise reason why this Court declined to answer one of the state law questions certified by a federal court in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948, ¶¶ 81-84 (declining to answer certified question concerning constitutionality of R.C. 2315.20 because that statute did not apply to the plaintiff: “Since R.C. 2315.20 does not apply to Arbino, we are bound not to consider her challenge to it…. It is well-settled law that this court will not issue such advisory opinions.”). Here, the Court should exercise the same judicial restraint and defer answering the five state law questions certified by the federal court concerning whether R.C. 3519.01(B) violates the right of referendum under the Ohio Constitution for the same reason: Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts and its three members (collectively, the “Committee”) – the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit – have no right of referendum to challenge Amended Substitute House Bill No. 6 (“H.B. 6”) in the first place. This is because H.B. 6 is a “law providing for a tax levy” that is exempt from a referendum under the plain language of Article II, § 1d of the Ohio Constitution. So, answering the five state law questions certified by the federal court – each of which wrongly assumes that the Committee has a right of referendum on H.B. 6 – would amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion by this Court. 1 II. STATEMENT OF AMICUS INTEREST Amicus Curiae FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (“FES”) submits this Amicus Memorandum to urge the Court, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 9.05(B), to defer answering the five state law questions certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Certified Questions”), until the Court first decides the threshold legal question presented in FES’s pending Petition Challenge against the Committee, filed with the Court on September 4, 2019 in Case No. 2019-1220: