Youngstowners yet again can reject fracking issue

A ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that will result in the anti-fracking charter amendment appearing on the November ballot in Youngstown does not change this fact: The amendment will be unconstitutional even if it is approved by the voters.

Indeed, it’s a big “if,” given that Youngstown residents have rejected the ban on fracking four times – twice in 2014 and twice in 2013.

Last November, the so-called Community Bill of Rights was summarily dismissed by a vote of 7,231 to 5,268. In the May 2014 primary, the charter amendment went down to defeat 3,674 to 3,100.

SUPREME COURT RULING

So, what was the Supreme Court ruling about? It had nothing to do with the merits or constitutionality of the anti-fracking proposal. Rather, the justices were acting on a motion filed by the city of Youngstown to order the Mahoning County Board of Elections to place the constitutional amendment issue on the Nov. 3 general-election ballot.

The board had voted 4-0 not to certify the citizen-initiative amendment, thus preventing it from being included on the ballot.

The city, led by Mayor John A. McNally and Law Director Martin Hume, argued in its motion for a writ of mandamus that the board of elections had acted illegally and had violated the constitutional separation of powers.

The Supreme Court agreed, saying the elections officials do not have the authority “to sit as arbiters of the legality or constitutionality of a ballot measure’s substantive terms.

“An unconstitutional amendment may be a proper item for referendum or initiative,” the court ruled. “Such an amendment becomes void and unenforceable only when declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Let there be no doubt about how a court of competent jurisdiction will rule if the Community Bill of Rights is passed by the voters and then challenged in court. After all, the Ohio Supreme Court already has ruled in another case that only the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has authority over oil and gas drilling in the state.

As Mark Munroe, chairman of the county board of elections, put it in explaining why he and his colleagues refused to certify the citizen initiative constitutional amendment, “While opinions were expressed at our meeting that the issue was unenforceable and unconstitutional, we did not make that determination. The Supreme Court had already made that determination in the [Feb. 17] case. As a result, we felt the petitions that were circulated were invalid.’’

Mayor McNally’s decision to take the issue to the Supreme Court does not indicate a change in his long-held position on the fracking ban.

He, along with members of city council, and a long list of organizations, businesses and unions have been vocal in their opposition to the so-called Bill of Rights.

Likewise, the voters of the city of Youngstown have also been adamant in their rejection of the self-styled protectors of the environment, led by Ray and Susie Beiersdorfer.

Finally, we remain unwavering in our rejection of this clearly unconstitutional endeavor – and the abuse of the citizen- initiative provision of the constitution.

DISRESPECT TOWARD VOTERS

After four rejections, it is clear that the Beiersdorfers and others associated with FrackFree Mahoning Valley have little respect for the voters of the city of Youngstown.

They are so self-absorbed and so self-centered that they are determined to shove the issue down our throats.

As we said in an editorial in November after the fourth rejection, “A reasonable person – with emphasis on the word reasonable – would conclude, therefore, that the outcome of the general election should be the final word on this self-serving issue. After all, the people have spoken, over and over.

“But the Beiersdorfers and others, who are determined to save us from ourselves, continue to believe they represent a majority of the residents of the city – despite evidence to the contrary.”

The Supreme Court ruling may be a godsend because if the constitutional amendment is approved, then a lawsuit will be filed challenging the constitutionality and that will be end of the Community Bill of Rights.