Action under Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution
J. ARMSTRONG (0038973) NELSON M. REID (0068434) JAMES P.
SCHUCK (0072356) Bricker & Eckler LLP Counsel for
COREY COLOMBO (0072398) DEREK S. CLINGER (0092075) BEN F.C.
WALLACE (0095911) McTigue & Colombo LLC Counsel for
Respondents Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment
Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, and Samara Knight
MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181) Ohio Attorney General TIFFANY L.
CARWILE (0082522) ANN YACKSWHAW (0090623) Assistant Attorneys
General Counsel for Respondent Ohio Secretary of State
PETITION RESPONDENTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
RELATORS' JOINT EMERGENCY MOTION
Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice
Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee,
Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, and Samara Knight
("Petition Respondents) oppose the Relators'
"Joint Emergency Motion" in which they seek to
suspend the Ohio Constitution or, alternatively, to impose an
extremely prejudicial scheduling order upon the Petition
outset, it should be noted that although Relators captioned
their motion as "joint," Petition Respondents did
not join in or consent to this motion.
their motion, Relators essentially request the Court to
"suspend or extend" the deadlines for challenges to
statewide initiative petitions as set forth in Article II,
Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution. Petition Respondents do
not believe that the Court has the authority to change such
deadlines, especially given the express language in the
Article II, Section 1g that "[i]f no ruling determining
the petition or signatures to be insufficient is issued at
least eighty-five days before the election, the petition and
signatures upon such petitions shall be presumed to be in all
respects sufficient." Moreover, Relators have not
established that any exigent circumstances exist to warrant a
suspension of the Ohio Constitution. Indeed, Relators filed
their challenge on July 25, 2018, which was nine (9) days
before their deadline for filing such challenge.
Respondents also strongly object to the extremely prejudicial
scheduling order proposed by Relators. The Relators'
proposed scheduling order, which was filed at approximately
4:20 p.m. on July 31, would require all parties to file their
evidence by 5 p.m. on August 2. That new deadline would
hardly be 48-hours after Relators requested it, and there
would be even less notice by the time the Court rules on
Relators' motion. Moving up the deadline would be even
more prejudicial to Petition Respondents in light of the fact
that August 2 is their deadline for filing its Supplemental
Petition with Respondent Secretary, a fact Relators are
surely aware of. Moreover, Respondent Secretary has not even
filed his Answer, yet. Petition Respondents will need time to
review his response to the challenge and prepare accordingly.
An August 2 deadline for submitting evidence would leave
Petition Respondents with virtually no time to do so.
Petition Respondents propose the following schedule:
1. August 3 - Relators' brief and evidence are due.
2. August 10 - Respondents' brief and evidence are due.
3. August 11 - Relators' reply brief is due.
would move up the deadlines, as requested by Relators, while
also remaining consistent with the Court's initial order
which gave the Respondents seven days after Relators file
their brief to file their own merit briefs. As to permitting
the parties to file their evidence at the same time they file
their merit brief, this is the Court's practice for
expedited election cases under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2). As
to the proposed weekend filing deadline for the reply brief,
there is precedent for this under Article II, Section 1g
challenges. In Rothenberg v. Husted, et al., Case
No. 2011-1344, the Court required respondents to file their
answer by 3 p.m on a Saturday and required relators to file
their brief and evidence by 12:00 p.m. on a ...