Late on Friday, September 9, an Ohio State Court of Appeals refused to remove 4 initiatives from the November 2005 ballot, even though they were placed on the ballot using out-of-state circulators. State ex rel Finan v Blackwell, 05-apd-08-854. The 4 initiatives all relate to election law. One lets anyone vote early; one imposes campaign finance restrictions; one provides for a state board of elections; and one sets up procedures for a nonpartisan body to draw congressional and legislative district boundaries.
The Court did not actually settle the question of whether out-of-state circulators are permitted in Ohio. Instead, the court found procedural flaws in the lawsuit that had been filed to remove the initiatives. Still pending in the US Court of Appeals is Ralph Nader’s challenge to the same restriction. Nader was removed from the Ohio ballot last year because some of his circulators were thought not to live in Ohio.
I represent the Nader campaign in the Sixth Circuit case mentioned above. I find it ironic that Blackwell has two different interpretations of Ohio law. In the Finan case, he argues that Ohio law does not require residence on behalf of circulators. In the Nader case, he argues it does. Of course, the two cases differ; Nader was a candidate, while initiatives are stake in Finan. Still, the Ohio statute (at issue in both) does not distinguish the two. It thus seems strange to have two diametrically opposed interpretations. At least the Ohio AG’s contrary argument is consistent.