Federal judge notes bombast in HB 6 fight

HDarrel Rowland

is opinion may have been couched in legal language, but U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. acknowledged that the warfare over the House Bill 6 referendum was over-the-top nasty.

Sargus wrote of blockers and bribes and bombast in his 29-page opinion last week that dashed opponents' hopes of a federal court bailout of their failed petition drive, Dispatch reporter Randy Ludlow notes.

The judge rejected a bid by Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts for more time to gather signatures to gain the ballot and seek repeal of the $1 billion ratepayer-paid bailout of Firstenergy Solutions' pair of nuclear power plants.

"Few Ohioans are unaware of Amended Substitute House Bill 6 ... opponents and supporters of the measure locked horns in what has become one of the most expensive and divisive campaigns in Ohio history," the judge wrote.

"Plaintiffs claim, and have supported the allegations with sworn testimony, that circulators of the referendum petitions have been assaulted and harassed," Sargus said.

His honor also cited testimony about bribes to lure away circulators and a "fake petition" circulated by Ohioans For Energy Security, the dark money-fed pro-hb 6 force that dropped over $16 million on TV commercials.

Sargus concluded that the referendum organizers' request for more days to solicit signatures, and a need for answers to unsettled state law, belong before the Ohio Supreme Court. Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts contend that state law illegally robbed it of 38 of the 90 days for its petition drive by requiring state approvals before signature gathering could begin.

The judge referred five legal questions about the state's referendum laws to the Ohio Supreme Court, which now can answer them in a subsequent ruling or decline to get involved.

The court placed the matter on its docket on Thursday and gave each side (which includes Secretary of State Frank Larose) 20 days to submit arguments why the justices should — or should not — rule.

The Ohio Supreme Court typically rules on questions posed by the federal courts but is not required to do so.

Regardless, Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts plans to file a case before the court in a bid to revive a referendum campaign that fell more than 44,000 signatures short of the minimum number required to even file. It believes an extra 38 days would allow it to make the November 2020 ballot.

Firstenergy Solutions, meanwhile, has a case — moot for now — before the court arguing the fees imposed by House Bill 6 are not subject to referendum because they constitute a tax imposed by state lawmakers.

Abortion case reversal sought

As promised, Ohio Attorney General Dave

Yost has asked for a rarely granted rehearing of a decision by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving a controversial abortion law.

On Friday, the Republican Yost filed a brief asking the full court to review a decision by a three-judge panel, Dispatch reporter Marty Schladen reports. The decision agreed with a lowercourt ruling that struck down a 2017 Ohio law to criminalize abortions performed by doctors after the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome.

In a 2-1 decision, the appellate panel said the law violates a core tenet of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which found that the government can't place an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion.

The dissenting judge said that aborting a fetus because one knows it has Down syndrome is akin to practices in the past, when people were sterilized because they might produce genetically "inferior" offspring.

drowland@dispatch.com @darreldrowland