Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters
Encyclopedia
Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters is a federal lawsuit filed on April 1, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
seeking to overturn Ohio
statute ORC 3599.111, which forbids paying petitioners by the signature. The law went into effect on March 31, 2005.
for the 2005 general election ballot in that state. They contracted with a professional petition drive management company to pay $1.70 per signature for 450,000 signatures. This contract was entered into prior to the contested law taking effect. Once the law took effect, the petition drive management company notified CTR that they could no longer collect signatures at the specified rate and that, indeed, they would require an additional $300,000 to complete the drive.
On March 19, 2005, Judge Sandra Beckwith issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the state of Ohio, enjoining the enforcement of the state's ban on payment-per-signature. The TRO was extended multiple times, until the hearing before Judge Dlott, at which time Dlott invalidated Ohio's law as unconstitutional.
for the ballot. Judge Dlott criticized this evidence as not proving that the fraud was caused by the method of paying circulators by the signature.
Judge Dlott also rejected the value of evidence presented in the case by John Lindback, the Director of the Election Division for the Oregon Secretary of State
. Judge Dlott found that the materials presented by Lindback are "almost devoid of factual findings" and overall found that the Lindback exhibits "are not probative even to the extent that they are admissible".
to the Sixth Circuit
.
On March 5, 2008, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the district court ruling to strike Ohio's law banning per-signature payments. On August 1, the Ohio Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision. On November 17, the United States Supreme Court announced that it was declining to hear Ohio's appeal., According to ballot access expert Richard Winger:
The defendants in the case, Joseph Deters and Matthias Heck, were named in their official capacities as enforcers of the law. Deters was the prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Ohio and Heck was the prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County, Ohio.
In the district court’s decision, Judge Dlott relied on evidence presented by professional signature-gathering companies that indicated a prohibition on “per-signature” compensation would increase the costs and the time associated with obtaining the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. The Court also found that the State’s evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish the fraud was caused by the method of payment to circulators. Thus, the Court held that the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents’ core political speech rights.
According to Richard Winger
, Ohio has declared that if it loses its appeal to the 6th Circuit, it will ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio is one of two United States district courts in Ohio and includes forty-eight of the state's eighty-eight counties. Appeals from the court are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at Cincinnati The...
seeking to overturn Ohio
Ohio
Ohio is a Midwestern state in the United States. The 34th largest state by area in the U.S.,it is the 7th‑most populous with over 11.5 million residents, containing several major American cities and seven metropolitan areas with populations of 500,000 or more.The state's capital is Columbus...
statute ORC 3599.111, which forbids paying petitioners by the signature. The law went into effect on March 31, 2005.
Background
The case arose out of an attempt of Citizens for Tax Reform, an Ohio political advocacy group, to quality a citizen initiativeInitiative
In political science, an initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a public vote...
for the 2005 general election ballot in that state. They contracted with a professional petition drive management company to pay $1.70 per signature for 450,000 signatures. This contract was entered into prior to the contested law taking effect. Once the law took effect, the petition drive management company notified CTR that they could no longer collect signatures at the specified rate and that, indeed, they would require an additional $300,000 to complete the drive.
On March 19, 2005, Judge Sandra Beckwith issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the state of Ohio, enjoining the enforcement of the state's ban on payment-per-signature. The TRO was extended multiple times, until the hearing before Judge Dlott, at which time Dlott invalidated Ohio's law as unconstitutional.
State of Ohio arguments
In unsuccessfully making its case, the government of Ohio relied on evidence of fraud from the 2004 petition drive that took place in Ohio to qualify Ralph NaderRalph Nader
Ralph Nader is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government....
for the ballot. Judge Dlott criticized this evidence as not proving that the fraud was caused by the method of paying circulators by the signature.
Judge Dlott also rejected the value of evidence presented in the case by John Lindback, the Director of the Election Division for the Oregon Secretary of State
Oregon Secretary of State
The Secretary of State of Oregon, an elected constitutional officer within the executive branch of government of the U.S. state of Oregon, is first in line of succession to the Governor. The duties of office are: auditor of public accounts, chief elections officer, and administrator of public...
. Judge Dlott found that the materials presented by Lindback are "almost devoid of factual findings" and overall found that the Lindback exhibits "are not probative even to the extent that they are admissible".
Procedural posture and actions
United States District Court Judge Susan Dlott found that Ohio's law was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and enjoined the state from enforcing it. Dlott's decision was appealed by the Ohio Secretary of StateOhio Secretary of State
The Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing elections in the State of Ohio. The Secretary of State also is responsible for registering business entities and granting them the authority to do business within the state, registering secured transactions, and granting access to public...
to the Sixth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Kentucky* Western District of Kentucky...
.
On March 5, 2008, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Kentucky* Western District of Kentucky...
upheld the district court ruling to strike Ohio's law banning per-signature payments. On August 1, the Ohio Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision. On November 17, the United States Supreme Court announced that it was declining to hear Ohio's appeal., According to ballot access expert Richard Winger:
In the 40 years that the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in ballot access, this is only the eighth time that the Court has refused to hear a ballot access appeal brought by a state. The Court generally treats state governments better than it treats ordinary litigants. The Court only takes 2% of the cases presented to it. However, states have a 50% success rate when they ask the Court to take a ballot access case.
The defendants in the case, Joseph Deters and Matthias Heck, were named in their official capacities as enforcers of the law. Deters was the prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, Ohio and Heck was the prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County, Ohio.
In the district court’s decision, Judge Dlott relied on evidence presented by professional signature-gathering companies that indicated a prohibition on “per-signature” compensation would increase the costs and the time associated with obtaining the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. The Court also found that the State’s evidence of fraud in certain petition efforts did not establish the fraud was caused by the method of payment to circulators. Thus, the Court held that the statute did not justify the burden placed on the initiative proponents’ core political speech rights.
Appeal
On December 27, 2006, the State of Ohio appealed the federal trial court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District. The hearing in the appeal was held on November 30, 2007 in front of Judges Julia Gibbons, David McKeague and Eugene Siler.According to Richard Winger
Richard Winger
Richard Lee Winger is the publisher and editor of Ballot Access News. He sits on the editorial board of the Election Law Journal and has been accepted as an expert on election law in federal courts in nine states, including California...
, Ohio has declared that if it loses its appeal to the 6th Circuit, it will ask for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.