So long as local taxpayers apply less pressure than public sector unions, this trend will continue. This guide is intended to teach you how to apply much-needed political pressure, and induce fiscal restraint, rather than profligacy, through the ballot box.

This Guide is a tutorial on how to use heretofore obscure parts of the law to, alongside the initiative process, to roll back either a recently-enacted, or even a not-so-recently-enacted school levy tax.

Download the Citizens Guide to Reducing Your School District Tax Burden here.
Download a Petition for Repeal of School District Income Tax here.
Download a Petition for a Levy Decease here.

COLUMBUS – The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today submitted to the Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of liberty groups and business leaders, initial signatures and summary language to begin the process of adding protections against forced union participation to Ohio’s Bill of Rights.

The Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment, which would “guarantee the freedom of Ohioans to choose whether to participate in a labor organization as a condition of employment,” will appear on the November 2012 ballot if 386,000 signatures are submitted by early July.  Specifically the Amendment would provide that, in Ohio:

• No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require any person or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization.
• No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment, any person or employer, to pay or transfer any dues, fees, assessments, other charges of any kind, or anything else of value, to a labor organization, or third party in lieu of the labor organization.

The Amendment would not prevent any person from voluntarily belonging to or providing support to a labor organization, or apply to agreements entered into or renewed prior to the enactment of this section.

Similar worker protection is provided in 22 other states, primarily in the south and west.  Ohio would be the first Midwestern state to pass such an Amendment.   Backers of the Amendment, which was drafted by the 1851 Center, include many of those who successfully implemented the 21^st Section to Ohio’s Bill of Rights, the Health Care Freedom Amendment, as Issue 3 on November 8.  If passed, the Amendment would be the 22^nd section in Ohio’s Bill of Rights.

“Ohio’s current unemployment rate remains over 9 percent – - it’s no coincidence that this rate of unemployment is much higher than in states that prohibit forced unionism, while private-sector job growth in those states has dramatically outpaced Ohio’s,” said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.  “This Amendment will make it clear that Ohio is a safe place to start, locate, or keep a business, and also a safe place to gain employment without being commandeered by powerful political machines.”

Before circulators can begin gather signatures, the Amendment’s summary must be approved as “fair and truthful” by the Ohio Attorney General, and its text as one subject by the Ohio Ballot Board.  By law, the Attorney General and Ballot Board each have ten days to complete their respective processes.

Added Thompson “Ultimately, freedom to associate also means freedom not to associate – - it’s time for Ohio to end labor conditions that compel its citizens to participate in highly-politicized labor organizations, or instead pay a considerable penalty.”

Since the New Deal era, federal regulations have dramatically tilted labor markets in favor of unions, and have left little room for state autonomy.  However, states are explicitly permitted to end forced union participation within their borders.

For more detailed information and references that support the above statements, click the following link for the 1851 Center’s:

FULL TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT

Be it resolved by the people of the State of Ohio that Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution be adopted and read as follows:

ARTICLE I

Freedom to choose whether to participate in a labor organization as a condition of employment

Section 22 (A) No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement, shall require, directly or indirectly, any person or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization.

Section 22 (B) No law, rule, agreement, or arrangement shall require, directly or indirectly, as a condition of employment, any person or employer to pay or transfer any dues, fees, assessments, other charges of any kind, or anything else of value, to a labor organization, or third party in lieu of the labor organization.

Section 22 (C) Nothing in this section shall (1) prevent any person from voluntarily belonging to or voluntarily providing support to a labor organization; or (2) apply to agreements entered into or renewed prior to the enactment of this section.

Section 22(D) No other provision of the Ohio Constitution shall impair or limit the rights contained herein.

Section 22(E) This section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit.  Any invalid or inoperative provisions shall first be construed as not conflicting with federal law, and then, only if necessary, severed from remaining portions of the section, which shall remain in effect.

Section 22(F) Any person, directly or indirectly affected or threatened with any harm by a violation of this section, may bring a civil or equitable action to enforce this section, and upon prevailing shall be entitled to injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and other damages.

Section 22 (G) Definitions

(1)   “Labor organization” means any agency, union, employee representation committee, or organization of any kind that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning collective bargaining, grievances, wages, benefits, rates of pay, hours of work, other forms of compensation, or other conditions of employment.

(2)   “Person or employer” includes all persons and employers in the state of Ohio, whether public or private, with the exception of the federal government of the United States and its employees.

(3)   Indirect requirements, include, but are not limited to the imposition of fines, penalties, or other costs or charges for, or the conditioning of public or private sector employment or employment opportunities on (a) failure to become or remain a member of a labor organization; or (b) paying or transferring dues, fees, assessments, other charges, or anything else of value to a labor organization.  Indirect requirement further includes payments to third parties in lieu of the payments prohibited above.

(4)   “Fines, penalties, or other costs or charges” includes but is not limited to any civil, criminal, contractual or other penalty; any fine, tax, or monetary charge; or any salary or wage withholding or surcharge or fee that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

November 10, 2011 – Reuters – Tea Party Groups to Keep Pushing Right to Work

November 10, 2011 - Dayton Business Journal: Tea Party Group Pushes for Ohio Amendment  

November 11, 2011 - Columbus Dispatch: Ohio Voters Could See Right to Work Issue

November 12, 2011 - The New American: Ohio Could End Forced Unionization

Click here for answers to Frequently Asked Questions about this measure.

The 1851 Center argues the law under which Corsi is being charged is not only vague in language, but violates his right to speak anonymously, is an unconstitutional prior restraint on core political speech, and violates freedom of association.  Meanwhile, Ohio’s Constitution contains broad protections for speech and press that afford new media the same protections as the mainstream press.

“The right to criticize one’s government cannot be conditioned on that government’s prior permission,” according to 1851 Center Director Maurice Thompson.  “Under the Ohio Elections Commission’s decision, every tea party group, every protest, and every signature-gathering or pamphleteering effort in the state is a Political Action Committee that must register with the state or face $1,000 fines, and even apolitical associations run this risk, if associating with those engaged in political speech.”  Said Thompson, “This ruling isn’t an aberration – - it represents the outward limit of a corrupt philosophy that prohibits the average Ohioan from fully engaging in political debates.”

COLUMBUS – The Supreme Court of Ohio today agreed to become the first state supreme court in the nation to determine whether a statewide smoking ban violates bar owners’ property rights. The Court also agreed to review whether the Ohio Department of Health has consistently exceeded its authority in fining business owners under the ban.

The case is brought by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law on behalf of Zeno’s Victorian Village, a family-owned Columbus tavern. The Center argues the smoking ban unconstitutionally deprives business owners of fundamental property rights. It also argues that the state health officials’ methods while enforcing the ban exceed their unconstitutional authority and is at odds with the plain language of the ban. The legal center’s Motion for Jurisdiction is available here.

“Irrespective of what one thinks of the merits of this law, it was never intended to result in the indiscriminate imposition of $5,000 citations on innocent business owners,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “These enforcement complications are largely a function of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole: local taverns are not public property, and owners of these properties have a right to decide how their indoor air is used, just as potential patrons have a right to freely enter or exit.”

The 1851 Center believes this will be Ohio’s most important decision on property rights since the Ohio Supreme Court decided Norwood v. Horney in 2006, prohibiting takings of private property for economic development. “In Norwood, the Court called Ohioans’ property rights, including the right to use property, ‘fundamental’ and ‘sacrosanct,’” said Thompson. “This case will determine whether the Court really meant that.”

After a politically-charged filing against Zeno’s by then-Attorney General Richard Cordray, a Franklin County Common Pleas court ruled that state and local health officials had overstepped their authority in enforcing the law. “When an individual is asked to stop smoking but refuses, liability is transferred from the property owner to the individual,” Judge David E. Cain wrote in his February 2010 decision.

The Ohio attorney general appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court and prompted the current appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, Ohio Liberty Council, COAST, and the Ohio Freedom Alliance filed amicus briefs with the high court supporting the 1851 Center’s position, and asking the Court to review the case.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Columbus – Cincinnati Public Schools’ (CPS) policy of prohibiting the sale of unused available public school buildings to charter schools and private schools violates state law, yesterday ruled Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert P. Ruehlman. The judge issued the ruling immediately from the bench.

The case was won by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law on behalf of the Theodore Roosevelt School, a Cincinnati charter school CPS sued to block from opening. The school building was unused and located in the Fairmount neighborhood, where all CPS schools are in academic emergency, and 80 percent of families are of minority status, and live in poverty.

CPS attempted to enforce a deed restriction prohibiting the use of school buildings previously owned by CPS for use by a charter or private school. The 1851 Center asserted such a restriction is void by Ohio’s public policy in favor of school choice, and cheats taxpayers of sales revenue from the buildings. The court agreed.

In his ruling, Judge Ruehlman called CPS’s deed restrictions anti-competitive and acknowledged that CPS was merely attempting to suppress competition from charter and other alternative schools, and thwart school choice for the parents and children of Cincinnati.

“The court’s decision is a landmark ruling in favor of school choice in Ohio and against adversarial school districts who attempt to block alternative schools’ right to exist,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “School districts across the state are now on notice that Ohio law clearly and specifically protects the rights of alternative schools. And serious financial penalties could befall districts who attempt to squelch the rights of these schools.”

The ruling halts CPS’s restrictive practice and opens the district to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC). Last week, OSFC member State Rep. Kris Jordan moved to stop state facilities funding to CPS because of its purported violations. Jordan, prompted by the 1851 Center’s legal action against CPS, informed the commission the school district forfeited its statutory right to project funding because of repeated violations of state charter schools provisions. The court’s ruling bolsters Jordan’s assertion. Jordan’s letter to the commission is available here.

“Over $46 million in state revenue has been directed away from Cincinnati Public Schools, and to charter schools, as over 7,000 students have left the Cincinnati Public School System for charters,” said Thompson. “Deed restrictions like the one struck down were devised to stop new charter and private schools from opening in Cincinnati, so CPS could retain students and state funds.”

The court’s ruling affirms:

• A contract term that violates public policy is void;
• A contract term that hinders the purpose of a statute is void;
• CPS’s deed restriction is void due to Ohio’s public policy in favor of transferring taxpayer-owned school buildings to community schools;
• CPS’s deed restriction is void because it is in derogation of a statewide public policy in favor of effectuating parental choice and educational opportunity through community schools; and
• Although the deed restriction is void, the conveyance must remain valid.

The 1851 Center’s filings in the case are available here and here.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

-30-