A bipartisan agreement to overhaul the way Ohio draws its legislative districts now goes to the voters.
Ohio Supreme Court Decides Two Major Cases In 2013
Ohio Supreme Court justices decided two major cases in 2013. The cases highlight the year in the judicial branch of Ohio government.
One of the biggest rulings came two and a half weeks before the end of the year â€“ the decision that upheld Medicaid expansion.
A divided court split 4-3 in ruling against six Republican lawmakers and two anti-abortion groups, which had sued over the Controlling Boardâ€™s decision to allow $2.5 billion dollars in federal money to be spent on Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion was backed by Gov. John Kasich, but had been stripped by Republicans from his budget.
There were no arguments in that case â€“ it had been fast-tracked to get a ruling before the start of 2014.
The start of 2013 brought before the court a case that seemed to have major implications on freedom of speech and religion in schools. Eighth grade science teacher John Freshwater was fired in 2008 for keeping his Bible and a poster featuring a Biblical verse in his classroom after he was ordered to remove them. David Smith argued for the Mt. Vernon City Schools, and told the Ohio Supreme Court in February that Freshwaterâ€™s actions â€“ or inaction â€“ was insubordination.
â€œThe principal had directed Mr. Freshwater to remove objects and he didnâ€™t,â€ says Smith.
But Freshwaterâ€™s lawyer Rita Dunaway had argued that her client was teaching supporting and opposing views on evolution, and thatâ€™s what got him fired.
â€œHere you have an ad hoc, non-policy based termination that is censorship and manifests religious hostility,â€ says Dunaway.
The justices ruled the school district did infringe on Freshwaterâ€™s First Amendment rights by ordering him to remove his personal Bible, but said he was insubordinate for keeping the poster and other items. But the court did not rule on whether Freshwater was unconstitutionally teaching his religious beliefs, which dissenting Justice Paul Pfeifer said disappointed him.
A few months later, the justices ruled on another big case â€“ saying that employer-provided benefits such as a car, insurance, cell phone or even Ohio State football tickets should be included in calculating child support payments. Jeffrey Morrow of Medina had wanted to reduce his child support payments when his income dropped in 2009. But Tom Morris, representing Morrowâ€™s ex-wife, told the court in arguments in June that benefits such as an employer provided car should count.
â€œIf you are given one to use at your discretion, then it absolutely should count because those are dollars that you do not have to spend on your own vehicle,â€ says Morris.
Court watchers are waiting for a few other big rulings, including one in what is arguably one of the biggest cases of the year â€“ whether Progress Ohio, the conservative Ohio Roundtable and two Democratic state lawmakers have standing to sue regarding JobsOhio. Both sides got the question: â€œwho has standing to sue the state in a case like this?â€ Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a conservative group, argued for Progress Ohio, and said potentially anyone in the state does.
â€œItâ€™s imperative in certain cases, including this one, that any Ohioans in their capacity as a citizen or a taxpayer have the standing to enforce the Constitution,â€ says Thompson.
But state deputy solicitor Steven Carney said Progress Ohioâ€™s argument is dangerous and goes against years of established case law.
â€œThey want you to throw away all that precedent, let everybody sue, as long as itâ€™s a constitutional challenge. Thatâ€™s their only limits,â€ says Carney.
If the court sides with Progress Ohio, that could open the door for a final ruling on whether JobsOhio was a constitutionally-created entity.