A little more info on lawsuit rejection
July 8, 2008 | Ohio | Comments (2)This is a key passage of the BizJournal article bolded below:
{Judge} Horton in an interview Tuesday stated simply that he agreed with the state’s position on the matter but declined to elaborate further. The committee has the opportunity to go up again for a permanent injunction against enforcing the law through a hearing likely to be scheduled later in July.
At stake is the implementation of a payday law passed in September that caps the annual percentage rate on payday loans in the state at 28 percent, down from the 391 percent maximum currently permitted. Among other provisions, the bill also limits consumer borrowing at $500 or 25 percent of base monthly pay per loan, restricts borrowing to four times per calendar year and extends the term of a loan to 31 days from 14 days.
Comments»
It is not surprising that Judge Horton rejected the restraining order against the AG. The petition summary language hasn’t been truthful and includes no reference to the interest rate cap of 28% APR. If the Reject HB 545 Committee’s attorneys chose to include the fundamental tenant of the bill (the 28% rate cap you mention above), the Attorney General would most likely 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! Horton made the right decision. The voters have a right to view a fair and truthful summary before deciding whether or not to sign the Committee’s petition.
Too bad the AG refuses to move as fast as Judge Horton.