Ohio payday lending lawsuit to be heard by appeals court on Aug. 7th
August 4, 2008 | Ohio | Comments (2)Here’s today’s announcement from Ohioans for Financial Freedom:
Ohioans Fighting for Financial Freedom
To Have Voice Heard On Constitutional Challenge
Columbus―The Committee of Ohioans fighting to allow consumers to have lending options in the state said today its arguments will be heard by the 10th District Court of Appeals on August 7, 2008. The group says that Ohio law could prevent Ohioans from their Constitutional right to repeal a law. The lawsuit, originally filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, says State law cannot limit or restrict the power of the people to repeal a state law.
“Ohioans have an absolute democratic right to have their voice heard in this process. No law or office holder can impede that right,” said Kim Norris, spokesperson for Ohioans For Financial Freedom. “This is important not only for this issue, but for any other efforts by Ohioans to repeal any state law.”
Ohioans For Financial Freedom is currently circulating petitions in Ohio with summary language approved by the Attorney General. It:
- Repeals section (3) of H.B. 545 offering consumers more lending options
- Allows for short-terms loans to be made under H.B. 545
Repealing Section 3 of H.B. 545 means protecting 6,000 good-paying jobs with benefits, protecting Ohioans’ financial freedom and protecting consumers’ rights to privacy about their personal financial choices.
The lawsuit argues there is nothing in the Ohio Constitution that allows any Attorney General to review a summary language of any proposed ballot issue. The Ohio Constitution (Article 2) states specific requirements for initiative and referendum petitions, including signature requirements. It says, “The foregoing provisions of this section shall be self-executing. Laws may be passed to facilitate their operation, but in no way limiting or restricting either such provisions or the powers herein reserved.”
The lawsuit also points out no section of the Ohio Constitution requires electors seeking to exercise their reserved power of referendum to prepare a summary of the law, section of law, or item in any law appropriating money, or to submit that summary to the Attorney General of Ohio for her certification. That requirement is only found in Ohio law 3519.01(B), which not only requires the preparation of a summary, but also requires that petitioners first collect at least 1,000 signatures to present the summary to the Attorney General for her consideration. If the Attorney General refuses to certify the summary, petitioners must revise the summary and again collect at least 1,000 signatures to resubmit the summary for the Attorney General’s consideration.
Ohio law (R.C. 3519.01(B) restricts the people’s right by imposing an unconstitutional limit to the ballot with the requirement of preparing a summary of the law, section of law, or item in any law appropriating money, and then collecting 1,000 signatures to submit that summary for the Attorney General’s consideration.
This statute severely limits and restricts the rights of Ohioans by the power of repealing a law (by referendum) by reducing the constitutionally mandated amount of time within which Ohioans may seek a referendum.
Under Ohio law, the Attorney General may take up to 10 days to issue her certification, or her refusal to certify, the required summary of the law to be referred. Petitioners are given only 90 days from the Governor’s filing of the law with the Secretary of State of Ohio within which to submit a referendum petition containing nearly 250,000 valid signatures, which, in itself is a daunting task. Significantly reducing the time within which those signatures may be collected, therefore, limits and restricts the reserved power of referendum. Even if Respondent certifies petitioners’ summary of the law, section of law, or item in any law appropriating money on the first attempt, the 10-day-plus process eliminates approximately 15% of the time within which such petitioners must collect sufficient valid signatures.
-30-
Comments»
I think that the nerve of the payday lenders to so outright deny their legislators is hideous. We elected our legislators to represent and look out for us. If the truth be told, no one wants to be in debt, especially to a payday lender. It is not a reasonable loan. The pressure to pay the loan back in two weeks with high interest is too much for anyone to bear. Then most people have to take the loan out again and then they owe even more money. If the loan defaults, they call all day long and leave nasty messages. They need a reasonable payback system. Also, with them repealing the 3rd section of the new law regarding interest rates, what about adhering to the rest of the law? In other words, Attorny General Rogers agreed to the repeal of section 3 of HG 545 regarding the interest rate. But what about the length of the loan and how many can be taken out, etc. Was all of that repealed too?
please answer.
In response to your several questions: No body forces people to take out payday loans. And they don’t have to take out loans “again and again.” CFSA member companies offer an extended payment plan.
As to the referendum, please go on http://www.ohioans4financialfreedom.com and you can learn details of the referendum.