Friday, March 7, 2014



Craig T. Conley (attorney for Cynthia Balas-Bratton) says that he will be filing with the Ohio Supreme Court early next week a Writ of Prohibition asking that the high court prohibit the Stark County Board of Elections from placing the name of George T. Maier on the Stark County Democratic Party primary ballot for the office of Stark County sheriff.

Conley's words:
I don't want to minimize the burden.  The burden of getting the secretary of state reversed is a significant one. 

It is akin to but not quite an 'abuse of discretion.'  ... 

But the secretary of state made my burden somewhat easier because he is so 'wishy-washy' in that he does not say affirmatively yes or no.  And that makes my burden a lot easier.

It is a difficult burden to overcome, but it has been done.  This secretary of state and his predecessor [Democrat Jennifer Brunner] have been reversed under similar circumstances by the Supreme Court.

I feel pretty confident ... [on the basis of George Maier] in his qualification document [submitted to the Stark BOE] wherein he relied on only 23 months [of supervisory experience {under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a)}] and that could very well be dispositive [on the Writ of Prohibition that Conley plans to file early next week].

I don't have to demonstrate to the court that his [Husted's] affirmative decision was wrong.  All I have to point out to the court is 'that he [Husted] really didn't know.

The court really has become the tie-breaker.

I still have a St. John issue [in his Writs of Prohibition/Writs of Mandamus, two of which each] the denial of which I am going to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Obviously, Balas-Bratton would have wanted the secretary of state to rule her way.

But he didn't

His decision was a mimic of Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione's in opening up ("I want to err on the side of Democracy') the second Stark Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment process for George T. Maier to reapply notwithstanding the the law of the case seemed to preclude his doing so.

Somewhere along the line, the Ohio Supreme Court will have to rule that Maier is qualified under ORC 311.01 to be Stark County sheriff.

The secretary of state clearly states in his reasons for ruling Maier onto the ballot that he is not making  a qualification determination.

In failing to making a forthright determination that George T. Maier is qualified under his reading of ORC 311.0 in the context of the evidence presented by both the protestor and Maier, Secretary of State Husted failed to discharge the responsibility placed with the Board of Elections by the Ohio General Assembly in making ORC 311.01 the law of the land.

Both sides should be unhappy with the secretary.

His decision is a clear case of political waffling.

Of course, he is a candidate for reelection himself this year and may face a stiff challenge from the dynamic Nina Turner.  And beyond this year, he has to be looking at the possibility he might be a candidate for governor in 2016 on the chance that John Kasich will be the Republican standard bearer for president.

Candidates - especially statewide ones - are prone to political fence riding whenever they get the opportunity.

That is what the SCPR thinks John Husted has done.

And, while the Maier camp may take solace in having the Secretary's decision go his way; they should be more than a little bit upset with the weaseling he did in coming to his determination.

The SCPR thinks Conley is correct.

Husted's decision is "wishy-washy" and the SCPR thinks it was purposely so in order to throw a sop to a powerful Stark County Republican or two who have to be outraged with his siding with the Democrats.

He knows that in not being forthright and unequivocal in doing his job to decide clearly - one way or the other - whether George T. Maier is qualified that he did give the Balas-Bratton side (which clearly benefits Stark's Republicans in their effort to capture the sheriff's office in November) a much easier path to getting a Supreme Court reversal of today's decision.

And if he gets reversed, he will not shed one tear.

For he has done what it is typical of politicians to aspire to do:  "having it every which way!"

No comments: