On February 4, Ohio initiative proponents asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Schmitt v LaRose, 19-974. This is the case on whether a local Ohio election official should have the power to reject a local initiative, even though it has enough valid signatures, because the official thinks the measure would be unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court had ruled in favor of the initiative proponents, but the Sixth Circuit had reversed.
The initiative dealt with how marijuana arrests should be handled. Here is the cert petition.
Judicial POWER in the courts.
ALL sorts of bills in legis bodies are facially UNCONST. —
does not stop the gerrymander hacks from printing them and voting on them.
The real real question under a federal system, unless there are clear US constitutional issues involved, is why the US district court took the case in the first place, at least not before state constitutional remedy possibilities were first exhausted in the Ohio state court system.
And, IMO, per the appellate court vacating the district court’s ruling, it never should have been taken by the federal court system. And I’m curious why the Supremes granted the cert. From what I read, the appellate court made the right decision in not only overturning the district, but specifying state court system redress the plaintiffs never sought. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/19-3196/19-3196-2019-08-07.html
NOOO exhaustion of state remedies required for USA violations — esp violations of USA Const.
This case – 1 and 14-1 Amdt violations.