|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Court Rules That It Lacks Jurisdiction To Decide Campaign Finance Disclosure Dispute
2006-1678. State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 2006-Ohio-5202.
In Mandamus. Cause dismissed.
Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Moyer, C.J., and O'Connor, J., concur in judgment only.
Resnick, Pfeifer and O'Donnell, JJ., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5202.pdf
(Oct. 3, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to determine in a mandamus action whether provisions of state campaign finance laws have been violated because R.C. 3517.151(A) confers on the Ohio Elections Commission exclusive original jurisdiction to determine whether “acts or failures to act” in the area of campaign finance reporting constitute violations of statutory disclosure requirements.
In a 4-3 decision, the Court held that it could not proceed to decide a complaint filed by the Ohio Democratic Party against Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell involving Blackwell's alleged failure to enforce campaign contribution disclosure requirements against a “third-party” political advocacy group called Common Sense 2006.
In a required campaign finance disclosure statement submitted to the Secretary of State, Common Sense 2006 reported that it had raised $1,537,500, which it intended to spend on electioneering communications in the form of radio and television advertising concerning the 2006 gubernatorial election. Common Sense 2006 reported that all of its contributions had come from a single donor: a separate entity called Common Sense Ohio. The report did not provide a list of donors to Common Sense Ohio.
The Ohio Democratic Party (ODP) filed a complaint with the Supreme Court alleging that Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006 are so closely interrelated that they constitute the same entity, and that Blackwell had not complied with his duty as the state's chief elections official by requiring disclosure of the names of all donors who made contributions of $200 or more to Common Sense Ohio. The complaint asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Blackwell to order Common Sense 2006 to file an amended financial disclosure statement providing the names of individual contributors to Common Sense Ohio.
On Sept. 12, the Supreme Court issued a stay of discovery in the mandamus action and ordered the parties to submit written briefs on the issue of whether the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the requested writ.
In today's decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the ODP mandamus complaint based on a determination that the General Assembly has given the Ohio Elections Commission exclusive jurisdiction to make an initial determination that an act or failures to act constitutes a violation of state campaign finance disclosure laws.
In a per curiam opinion joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Judith Ann Lanzinger, the Court held that, contrary to arguments advanced by the ODP, the party was not precluded from filing a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission regarding Blackwell's alleged failure to execute his duties.
The opinion pointed out that “R.C. 3517.151(A) expressly provides that ‘complaints with respect to acts or failures to act under the sections listed in division (A) of Section 3517.153 of the Revised Code shall be filed with the Ohio elections commission.' … Relator (the ODP) asserts that under these provisions, it could not file a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against the Secretary because the commission's jurisdiction is restricted to complaints against persons and entities who must comply with the election laws, not the public officials who must enforce the election laws. R.C. 3517.151(A), however, broadly applies to complaints concerning ‘acts or failures to act' under the election provisions specified in R.C. 3517.153(A). There is no limitation in these statutes that prevents any person from filing a complaint against public officials, including the Secretary, alleging that they violated the specified election provisions. And we will not read an implied limitation into the statute.”
The opinion further noted that the cited constitutional provisions did not divest the Ohio Elections Commission of its exclusive original jurisdiction over the campaign-finance law claims. In addition, the opinion observed that because Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006 would likely refuse to comply with any order of the Secretary of State to disclose the individual contributors based on their constitutional challenge to the disclosure law, which would then impose a duty on the Secretary to file a complaint against them in the elections commission, “the requested writ would place relator in no better position than it would have been in had it simply filed a complaint against Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006 with the elections commission itself.”
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only.
In a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, Justice Alice Robie Resnick wrote that in her view the Ohio Elections Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the allegations raised in the case, noting that this case is distinguishable from Taft-O'Connor'98 and therefore the Taft case should not be used as the reason for dismissing the action.
Justice Resnick wrote that Taft-O'Connor'98 involved allegations regarding the truthfulness of ads, while, in contrast, this case seeks to compel the Secretary of State to perform his statutory duties regarding the alleged failure to disclose the identity of contributors. She also said that potential remedies available through the elections commission would not provide the ODP with a remedy that is that is complete, beneficial and speedy and therefore adequate. Citing the ability of the group Citizens for a Strong Ohio to extend for years the process of resolving financial disclosure complaints that were filed against it with the elections commission in 2000, Justice Resnick said that experience illustrated that the elections commission “is absolutely unable to provide speedy and effective relief in some situations.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Terrence O'Donnell wrote that the Ohio Constitution provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in mandamus actions and that the parties should be afforded the opportunity to brief the issues before the Court.
“In my view, the Ohio Democratic Party should have an opportunity to demonstrate its entitlement to a writ of mandamus and to establish its compliance with the standard for obtaining it,” he said.
Contacts
Scott North, 614.227.2000, for the
Ohio Democratic Party.
David Langdon, 513.733.1038, for Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."