Chillicothe is asking the Ohio Supreme Court to block a ballot issue that would ban red-light and speed cameras in the city.In a motion filed by Assistant Law Director James Mann, the city asks the state's highest court to force the Ross County Board of Elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on the initiative, or, if that isn't allowed, remove the initiative altogether from the Nov. 3 ballot.
"We're basically saying give us a quasi-judicial hearing or throw this off the ballot," Mann said.The city has asked the court to expedite its motion as the election is nearly a month away.On Sept. 2, the Board of Elections conducted a hearing on the ballot initiative and voted unanimously to keep the red-light and speed-enforcement ban on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Board members indicated their vote did not necessarily signal personal approval of the initiative, only that they felt constitutional issues should be decided after the vote by the court system, not by the Board of Elections.After that hearing, Mann voiced concern because the city was not allowed to introduce witnesses or evidence to the board. The city had asked Police Chief Roger Moore to testify against removal of the cameras, but the Board of Elections indicated it only wanted to hear a presentation by an attorney for each side.
"The law requires a quasi-judicial hearing to take it to the (Ohio) Supreme Court, because you have to put in evidence and testimony," Mann said, adding without a hearing, the issue would be difficult to take to the high court.Mann also argues the ballot initiative is unconstitutional and, as written, would make it difficult for law enforcement to use in-vehicle radar and issue tickets because the wording is vague. He said the argument is not about keeping the red-light and speed cameras from Redflex Inc. installed at city intersections.
"This doesn't get down to whether we support Redflex or not," Mann said. "We think it's a very badly worded piece of legislation." The initiative item was placed on he ballot after members of the group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement collected signatures from Chillicothe residents in the form of an initiative petition.
CAPE President Rebekah Valentich said its goal was not to undermine law enforcement, and the language concerning radar in vehicles was meant to deter the city from employing speed vans in the city. "We had to include this language because we didn't want them implementing these vans," Valentich said. "We want police officers to do their jobs; that's why we're so against the cameras."
Mayor Joe Sulzer said another constitutional concern is that the contract signed between the mayor and Redflex Inc. to install traffic and speed-enforcement cameras was administrative and did not create a new law. "The council did not create a new law; they gave me authority to enter into a contract with a company," Sulzer said. "That's not the creation of a new law, and it's not subject to a referendum."
Not everyone believes the case should be taken up by the court before the fall election. County Prosecutor Mike Ater, who represents the Ross County Board of Elections, believes the issue of constitutionality should be decided by the courts after the November vote.
"We're basically saying give us a quasi-judicial hearing or throw this off the ballot," Mann said.The city has asked the court to expedite its motion as the election is nearly a month away.On Sept. 2, the Board of Elections conducted a hearing on the ballot initiative and voted unanimously to keep the red-light and speed-enforcement ban on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Board members indicated their vote did not necessarily signal personal approval of the initiative, only that they felt constitutional issues should be decided after the vote by the court system, not by the Board of Elections.After that hearing, Mann voiced concern because the city was not allowed to introduce witnesses or evidence to the board. The city had asked Police Chief Roger Moore to testify against removal of the cameras, but the Board of Elections indicated it only wanted to hear a presentation by an attorney for each side.
"The law requires a quasi-judicial hearing to take it to the (Ohio) Supreme Court, because you have to put in evidence and testimony," Mann said, adding without a hearing, the issue would be difficult to take to the high court.Mann also argues the ballot initiative is unconstitutional and, as written, would make it difficult for law enforcement to use in-vehicle radar and issue tickets because the wording is vague. He said the argument is not about keeping the red-light and speed cameras from Redflex Inc. installed at city intersections.
"This doesn't get down to whether we support Redflex or not," Mann said. "We think it's a very badly worded piece of legislation." The initiative item was placed on he ballot after members of the group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement collected signatures from Chillicothe residents in the form of an initiative petition.
CAPE President Rebekah Valentich said its goal was not to undermine law enforcement, and the language concerning radar in vehicles was meant to deter the city from employing speed vans in the city. "We had to include this language because we didn't want them implementing these vans," Valentich said. "We want police officers to do their jobs; that's why we're so against the cameras."
Mayor Joe Sulzer said another constitutional concern is that the contract signed between the mayor and Redflex Inc. to install traffic and speed-enforcement cameras was administrative and did not create a new law. "The council did not create a new law; they gave me authority to enter into a contract with a company," Sulzer said. "That's not the creation of a new law, and it's not subject to a referendum."
Not everyone believes the case should be taken up by the court before the fall election. County Prosecutor Mike Ater, who represents the Ross County Board of Elections, believes the issue of constitutionality should be decided by the courts after the November vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment