Ohio update 2: Industry litigates against A.G.
July 7, 2008 | Ohio | Comments (1)The Reject H.B. 545 Committee filed a lawsuit today over the ballot language issue we’ve been discussing on these pages. From the Business Journal story:
Each time language is rejected, an Ohio Revised Code provision allows the attorney general a 10-day window to review revisions, and without an OK of the language, proponents can’t begin collecting the more than 241,000 signatures needed to bring the initiative to the November ballot.
The group, which has less than two months to collect the signatures, is alleging nothing in the state constitution allows the attorney general to review summary language and the subsequent state law imposes an unconstitutional constraint on the process. Each 10-day window takes up more than 10 percent of the 90 days allowed for signature collection.
This will get interesting. Stay tuned.
Comments»
The essence of the problem is simple very simple. The petition summary language hasn’t been truthful and includes no reference to the interest rate cap of 28% APR. Perhaps if the Reject HB 545 Committee’s attorneys chose to include some of the fundamental tenants of the bill (like the rate cap), the Attorney General would approve the language and the signature collection could begin.
Ohio law is pretty clear about the AG’s responsibility to review petition summary language: “Not later than 10 business days after receiving a copy of the petition, measure, and summary, the attorney general shall examine the summary and, if in the attorney general’s opinion, the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the measure to be referred, so certify.” The AG hasn’t found the summary to be fair and truthful. Pretty darn cut and dry!