1851 Center for Constitutional Law Traffic Cameras are Unconstitutional

September 8, 2014

It is important for everyone to remember what the true issues are with traffic cameras. If we look at what the 1851 has presented to the Ohio Supreme Court, then we cut straight to the real issues.

The 1851 Center’s brief asserts the following:

  • Through the Ohio Constitution, citizens vested judicial power in the courts only. And Ohio cities’ hearing officers exercise “judicial power” when they determine whether Ohio drivers are liable for the violation.
  • While the Ohio Constitution permits the Ohio General Assembly to create additional judicial power, legislators have never created blanket authority for cities, or traffic-camera specific authority. Instead, they have indicated that all such violations must run through municipal courts.
  • The City of Toledo, like other Ohio cities, cannot create judicial power through local ordinances.
  • “Administrative” traffic camera enforcement violates Ohioans’ right to defend themselves before an elected judge, as well as their due process right to judicial oversight before deprivation of their vehicles.

This is the heart of the problem. Cities across the state can assert whatever other arguments they want to, but these are the true issues.

Read the entire article here.

The politicians in Cleveland think they can “create” judicial power by passing new laws. They all should know that this is in direct violation of the Ohio Constitution. If your local politician doesn’t know this, remember that factoid at election time.

 

Advertisements

Cleveland City Council Votes To Place Traffic Camera Issue on the Ballot

September 3, 2014

Cleveland City Council did the right thing on Wednesday, September 3, 2014, when they voted to place the traffic camera issue on the November, 2014 ballot. The entire article can be read here at cleveland.com.

The entire process was just a formality. Ohio State Law mandates a citizen initiative be put on the ballot if the signatures are verified. (Apparently, Maple Hts. politicians don’t think they have to follow the law. Good luck with that one. You can catch up on that drama right here.)

Councilperson Joe Cimperman has the right idea:

“….because they do not do what they’re supposed to do. They were supposed to make life safer, sure they slow people down, but you see an increase in the number of rear end collisions and you see people speeding as soon as they pass the cameras,” said Cimperman.

We agree councilor!!

 


Round 1: Signatures are Certified for Traffic Camera Ban!

August 27, 2014

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has certified 6,613 signatures on the petitions that were turned in last week to ban traffic cameras in the city of Cleveland, Ohio. The grassroots group needed 6013 signatures to place this issue on the ballot.

Now, Cleveland City Council will need to meet on September 3, 2014 at noon in order to meet the September 5th filing deadline for the issue. City Council was scheduled to meet on September 8th but that would be too late.

Cleveland City Council President Kevin Kelley seemed a bit perplexed by the whole thing.

“Since we have to act on this, my goal is to not make things worse by requiring a special election,” Kelley said.

 

No one would want the city to pay for a special election. We don’t want a special election. But, gee whiz, “we don’t want to make matters worse by requiring a special election.” Read the entire article here.

We can only believe it is difficult for Council President Kelley to accept that a group of residents of Cleveland, Ohio worked tirelessly to put this issue on the ballot. Cleveland doesn’t see many citizen initiated petitions. May this be a wake up call to our elected officials.

You haven’t been listening to us. This is what happens when you don’t listen. Let the people of Cleveland decide.

 


Keeping Score on Cleveland City Council

August 4, 2010

For all of you playing along at home, Cleveland City Council representatives had a chance to redeem themselves on March 9, 2009. A new vote was taken regarding red light cameras–this time it included LEASED VEHICLES and who was responsible for paying a RED LIGHT CAMERA ticket. Some Council representatives moved to the other side this time. Some newer members of council had a chance to prove themselves to the community. It’s time to see for yourself:

Those voting yea: Council Members
Sweeney, Brady, Brancatelli,
Cleveland, Coats, Conwell, Cummins,
Dow, Johnson, Keane, Kelley, Pierce
Scott, Reed, Santiago, Westbrook,
Wilkes and Zone.

Those voting nay: Council Members
Cimperman and Polensek.

For all those interested in educating themselves, you can find the March 11, 2009 City Record here. Go to page 11, first column, toward the bottom.

No matter how many parties your council REPRESENTATIVE throws, no matter how many times they shake your hand and tell you life is good, no matter what they promise you, their VOTING RECORD speaks for itself.