Maple Hts: We Tried to Tell You But You Just Wouldn’t Listen

September 19, 2014

The poor, beleaguered politicians in Maple Hts. really thought they could keep the red light camera issue off the ballot in Maple Hts. We tried to tell you it wouldn’t work Maple Hts., but you just wouldn’t listen.

In a unanimous decision, the Ohio Supreme Court pointed out to the good politicians of Maple Hts. the Ohio Constitution makes it very clear that a citizen driven initiative has to be placed on the ballot. Live and learn, right fellas?


“Whether council delayed passage of an ordinance deliberately or negligently is not relevant,” the court said. “The Maple Heights City Council received verification of the signatures [on the petitions] more than two weeks before the constitutional deadline of Sept. 5 and conducted two regular council meetings in the interim.

“It’s failure to enact an ordinance at the second meeting fell well short of acting forthwith.”


Maybe they don’t understand the meaning of “forthwith?” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines forthwith as “immediately,” as in “immediately.” So as not to confuse the reader, the dictionary uses this sentence as an example:


“The court ordered the company to cease operations forthwith.”


If you would like to read the definition of forthwith, check it out here.

If you would like to read the entire article on the dressing down the Ohio Supreme Court gave Maple Hts., check it out here.

For all the Ohio politicians out there, it is good to read the Ohio Constitution.

“But in its 6-0 ruling, the court said that the Ohio Constitution “imposes a ‘mandatory constitutional duty’ upon city councils to submit charter amendment initiatives ‘forthwith.’ ”


We would like to remind the Cleveland City Council that no matter how “distasteful” it was for you to put Issue 35 on the ballot in Cleveland for November, 2014, it was mandatory. As in mandatory.



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.