Change of government off ballot

Lorain County voters will not consider a plan that would change the form of county government, according to a ruling by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.

The ruling comes as the latest step in a continuing public debate and effort to get a countywide vote on changing the form of government in Lorain County.

The change of government was to be placed on the ballot for Lorain County voters to consider in November.

However, Husted ruled “the proposal does not meet the requirements for a charter initiative given requirements of the Ohio Constitution and the jurisprudence surrounding it,” the July 9 ruling said.

Husted upheld a protest filed in June by Lorain County Recorder Judy Nedwick and Coroner Dr. Stephen B. Evans.

Husted’s ruling comes as the latest step in an effort stretching back several years.

In February, the Lorain County Elections Board voted 2-1 to certify a petition for a countywide vote on changing the form of government.

The petitions were submitted by the committee Citizens for Equal Representation of Lorain County, which outlines its proposed plan on 7districts.com.

In the new form of government, Lorain County would be divided into seven districts, each with about 43,000 people.

Voters would elect seven commissioners, one from each district, along with the county prosecutor, auditor and sheriff.

The commissioners would appoint a county administrator, medical examiner, clerk of courts, law director, public works director and treasurer, according to the proposed charter.

But Nedwick and Evans argued “the proposed charter does not satisfy the legal requirements to appear on the ballot.”

They cited Ohio Supreme Court precedent, the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Revised Code, and Husted did as well. He ruled the petition had deficiencies and shortcomings “fatal to this particular proposed charter petition.”

Husted said he invited supporters and opponents to file written arguments on the law and the merits of the protest.

But the change of government supporters did not filed any materials. Even if they were not filed in time, “I would have given their arguments consideration,” Husted said.

“Without the benefit of their viewpoint, and with a narrow statutory window for me to act, I have only the petition itself, protestors arguments and an unforgiving legal framework handed down by the courts, with which to make a decision,” Husted said.