Ohio Supreme Court’s resolving of traffic camera issue

  Parts of a controversy that’s actually nation-wide may soon be resolved at least in this state when the Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments over the legality of traffic cameras Friday.

  A Cleveland Plain Dealer article yesterday related that “while the case specifically involves the city of Toledo, the court's ruling will affect drivers across Ohio and every community that uses cameras as traffic cops  --- Toledo appealing a ruling in the Sixth District Ohio Court of Appeals that said the method that city used for processing the tickets deprived motorists of due process and equal protection under the Ohio and U.S. constitutions. (Docket for Walker v. City of  Toledo )
 
 A Columbus Dispatch article back in January reported “appeals courts in Toledo and Cleveland had ruled that city ordinances making red-light and speed-camera violations in-house administrative matters illegally deprive municipal courts of jurisdiction to handle moving traffic violations.

 Cleveland’s case, meanwhile, is a certified conflict between. Jodka v. City of Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 99951  and Walker v. City of  Toledo, 6th Dist., No. L-12-1056.  
 In the case of Pruiett et al. v. Village of Elmwood Place et al., here in Hamilton County, following the First District’s subsequently dismissed both its appeal and a motion for reconsideration this past May, the Supreme Court similarly unceremoniously denied jurisdiction last October.

  An NBCNews article back about the same time as the Dispatch’s heralded "Lights, cameras, reaction: Resistance builds against red-light cameras," noting, "A rarity 15 years ago, red light cameras have become ubiquitous in many U.S. cities. Communities in 24 states and Washington, D.C., now use the cameras to try to decrease illegal -- and sometimes deadly -- traffic violations. Supporters say it's worked…… Critics of red light programs worry about the Big Brother aspect of using cameras instead of cops, and many are saying the cameras, systems & procedures behind them -- generally run by private companies -- have spread not because they make streets safer, but because they mean profit for cities and companies.

  Cincinnatians, by the way Mr. Twain, were the first voters in the country to decide whether their municipality should be able to use cameras to catch drivers running red lights -- favoring a ban on such cameras  six years ago.
[ See Charter Art. XIV, City of Cincinnati ]

Supreme Court decision against political donation limits won't affect Ohio -- at least for now

  FoxNews, along with the others, yesterday morning reported the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees are unconstitutional -- splitting the court's liberal and conservative justices – and “being  hailed by Republican congressional leaders as a First Amendment victory, removing the cap on contributions, which was set at $123,200 for 2014. It does not change limits, though, on individual contributions for president or Congress, currently set at $2,600 per election. (See McCutcheon v. FEC, 12-536 )

  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects… If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.”

   Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the dissenting side, though, described the ruling as a major blow to vital campaign finance rules and took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench saying the “decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”

  A Cleveland Plain Dealer article, however, has some observers saying the decision won’t have much effect on Ohio in the short term.

  Ohio State University law professor Dan Tokaji said the ruling in the short term won’t have much effect on Ohio elections or campaign finance laws.

  “In the 5-4 decision," the Plain Dealers' article said, "the Supreme Court struck down on free-speech grounds a federal law limiting how much money an individual can give in total to federal candidates, political parties and political action committees. That federal cap is currently set at $123,200, including $48,600 specifically to candidates’ campaigns. But Ohio doesn’t have similar overall limits on donations to candidates, parties or PACs. The state does restrict how much money a person can give to an individual legislative or statewide candidate, but that kind of limit wasn’t affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

  “But over time, he said, this ruling could lead to challenges to Ohio’s individual donation limits. That’s because the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has stated in this decision and others that the government can only restrict political contributions when the donation appears to be outright bribery”.

Ohio Supreme Court Adopts Interpreter Services Improvements

  The Ohio Supreme Court’s news service Monday announced that the Court had approved rule changes that will provide better access to the state’s judicial system for people who need language interpretation, amending Rules 80-88 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio that govern foreign and sign language interpretation in Ohio’s courts.

 The changes that will take effect July 1, 2014

Amendments