Supreme Court keeps fracking issues off ballot

By Marc Kovac

news@vindy.com

COLUMBUS

The Ohio Supreme Court denied a request from groups in three Ohio counties to allow fracking-related charter issues to appear on the November ballot.

In a 6-1 decision Wednesday, with Justice William O’Neill dissenting, the state’s high court ruled Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted acted within his authority when he blocked the issues from consideration during the coming general election.

Justices were not swayed by Husted’s declaration the proposed amendments would prove invalid if passed, however.

The court instead based its decision on the fact that the petitioners did not meet other requirements for inclusion on the ballot.

According to the majority decision, “We hold that it was within Husted’s discretion to determine that the proposed charters were invalid.”

Husted invalidated charter proposals in Athens, Fulton and Medina counties that were related to oil and gas exploration, including horizontal hydraulic fracturing.

Husted said the issues were an attempt to circumvent state law, which places oil and gas regulations with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The latter already has been upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Husted said earlier this month that groups that want to change the state law and regulatory setup should pursue legislative action or the citizen initiative process to take the issue to a statewide vote.

Groups behind the ballot amendments hoped the high court would force Husted to include the issues on the November ballot, saying backers collected the requisite signatures and were entitled to a vote.

Justices ruled Husted had no authority to decide the constitutionality of charter petitions.

According to the majority decision, “Husted urges us to defer to his broader interpretation [of state law], which would effectively give him discretion to prejudge the legality or constitutionality of the substance of a petition. We decline to do so because his interpretation is not reasonable. ... Husted’s construction of the statute would lead to absurd results... [and] permit him to disqualify ballot initiatives before they are submitted to the electorate based on his legal opinion of their constitutionality.”

But justices did agree with a separate legal argument – that the charters in question did not meet constitutional and code requirements.

Justices wrote, “While purporting to maintain the status quo on matters of county offices, officers and their duties and manner of election, these proposed charters do not ‘provide the form of government of the county’ or ‘determine which of its officers shall be elected and the manner of their election.’ One must look to sources outside the proposed charters to determine the form of government they purport to establish, and therefore they do not satisfy the legal prerequisites.”