Mandamus
Proposed Ohio gambling plans
September 23, 2009 04:10 PM
Today's Columbus Dispatch contains a helpful article
(click here) that explains the two
proposed Ohio gambling plans that have been in
the news recently.
For a link to a copy of the the LetOhioVote.org opinion that's referenced in the article, click here. Like the Ohio Grocers Assn. case discussed in previous posts (for example, here), it was a 6-1 decision, with Justice Pfeifer in dissent. The majority held that the video-lottery-terminal ("VLT") provisions in the state's 2010-2011 biennial budget are subject to referendum under the Ohio Constitution. Under the Ohio Constitution, certain matters are not subject to referendum (click here), but the majority held that these exceptions did not apply to the VLT provisions at issue.
In dissent, Justice Pfeifer wrote, "[t]his case is truly one of first impression. Here, for the first time, this court is analyzing the state's biennial budget bill for the purpose of determining citizens' right to seek referendum." (¶57). He also wrote, "the exceptions . . . allow the legislature to budget without the uncertainty that referendum brings to the legislative process. Free from the threat of referendum, obligations and the means to fulfill those obligations are preserved with predictability. The exemption from referendum allows the state to make good on its liabilities; without it, the budget could remain in limbo for over a year, leaving the state unable to pay its 'current expenses.' " (¶62).
The Dispatch article states that the decision "potentially creates a hole of nearly $1 billion" in the state budget, and that Governor Strickland is "considering his options."
For a link to a copy of the the LetOhioVote.org opinion that's referenced in the article, click here. Like the Ohio Grocers Assn. case discussed in previous posts (for example, here), it was a 6-1 decision, with Justice Pfeifer in dissent. The majority held that the video-lottery-terminal ("VLT") provisions in the state's 2010-2011 biennial budget are subject to referendum under the Ohio Constitution. Under the Ohio Constitution, certain matters are not subject to referendum (click here), but the majority held that these exceptions did not apply to the VLT provisions at issue.
In dissent, Justice Pfeifer wrote, "[t]his case is truly one of first impression. Here, for the first time, this court is analyzing the state's biennial budget bill for the purpose of determining citizens' right to seek referendum." (¶57). He also wrote, "the exceptions . . . allow the legislature to budget without the uncertainty that referendum brings to the legislative process. Free from the threat of referendum, obligations and the means to fulfill those obligations are preserved with predictability. The exemption from referendum allows the state to make good on its liabilities; without it, the budget could remain in limbo for over a year, leaving the state unable to pay its 'current expenses.' " (¶62).
The Dispatch article states that the decision "potentially creates a hole of nearly $1 billion" in the state budget, and that Governor Strickland is "considering his options."
0 Comments