Foes Of JobsOhio Make Case To Supreme Court
The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments on JobsOhio on Wednesday, but not on whether itâs a constitutional creation. Instead the debate around who can file a lawsuit to settle the question of JobsOhio's constitutionality. Both sides got the question: âwho has standing to sue in a case like this?â? Chief Justice Maureen OâConnor asked it of Maurice Thompson from Progress Ohio, which filed the suit. OâConnor: âDoes every Ohioan have the right to stand where you are today?â? Thompson: âIn certain cases, itâs imperative ââ OâConnor: âNo. This case. This case. Had they gotten, done their filings within the 90 days.â? Thompson: âYes, your honor. Itâs imperative in certain cases, including this one, that any Ohioans in their capacity as a citizen or a taxpayer have the standing to enforce the Constitution.â? And Justice William OâNeill asked the question of state deputy solicitor Steven Carney. Pfeifer: âWho has standing to challenge Progress Ohio â or, Iâm sorry, JobsOhio? I keep getting my organizations mixed up. Who has standing today?â? Carney: âI believe that if they disagree with the transaction, liquor, private party people who deal with liquor who now deal with the new arrangement, or bondholders ââ Pfeifer: âWhy? Why are they different?â? Carney: âBecause they have a concrete interest in the transaction.â? Thompson said this law implicates public rights, not individual rights â and he says if no one has the standing to challenge laws, lawmakers are all powerful and can legislate at will. But Carney and the JobsOhio side argued that Progress Ohio wants an unprecedented form of standing that would allow 11.5 million people to legally fight any state law. âTheir rule has no limits," Carney argued. "It asks you to clear several constitutional hurdles, and also several precedential hurdles. They want you to throw away all that precedent, let everybody sue, as long as itâs a constitutional challenge. Thatâs their only limit.â? The JobsOhio side also argued that thereâs no investment of public money here so there canât be any taxpayer standing, because JobsOhio is a private non-profit corporation. That was just one of the several hints of possible future arguments about JobsOhio, such as about its transparency. But those wonât happen unless the Supreme Court rules that Progress Ohio has standing and that the lawsuit can proceed. Thompson said after the arguments that he feels that it will. âI donât exactly know which justices the votes will come from or exactly what theyâll say, but if they donât want to take a black magic marker and redact half of the Ohio Constitution, then they have to rule in our favor. "And I donât think they want to do that. I think that they recognize that this body has a place in our state government, and that that place will be lost if Progress Ohio doesnât have standing here.â? Thereâs no timeline for a ruling â though Thompson said he thinks his lawsuit against the state over Medicaid expansion will be decided before this one will. The issue of standing is key in several other cases, including the lawsuit over video lottery terminals at horseracing tracks that was filed by Progress Ohio and the conservative Ohio Roundtable. The Ohio Roundtable was also part of this lawsuit, along with two Democratic lawmakers. All but one justice on the court are Republicans. One of those Republicans, Justice Paul Pfeifer, said in court that this is a complicated case and that perhaps it should be tried in common pleas court â which is exactly what would happen if Progress Ohio prevails.