"Block that punt!" in football metaphor terms has to be the cry coming from the lips of Cynthia Balas-Bratton these days.
And it appears that such is exactly what may happen on the next play of her protest (filed February 11, 2014) of George T. Maier being the Democratic candidate for Stark County sheriff.
Coming out of the Stark Board of Elections (BOE, Board) hearing of February 21, 2013, the SCPR figures that Team Balas-Bratton had Team Maier pinned back on its own ten yard line with a 4th and 20 yards to go for a first down; 4th and 80 yards to go for a touchdown.
Yesterday, Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley sent in "the play" which could result in the Ohio Supreme Court knocking down Secretary of State Jon Husted's effort (a punt) to get Maier onto May's primary ballot without having scored a winning touchdown for Team Maier.
Husted elected in his March 7, 2014 decision to "play it safe" and punt the ball (Maier's fulfilling ORC 311.01(B(8) [re: a second quo warranto] & (9) requirements) out of harm's way, to wit:
While I am not confident that Mr. Maier meets the legal qualifications in the Ohio Revised Code, I am also unable to clearly conclude he does not. Given the law and the facts in this case, I choose to err on the side of ballot access.In "playing it safe," Husted utterly failed to discharge the duty imposed on him by Ohio's statutory law to determine - from the evidence presented him through the Stark Board of Elections - whether or not George T. Maier is entitled to be on the ballot.
In "err[ing] on the side of ballot access" he ignored the law and in effect said "Supreme Court, you look at that evidence anew and the legal arguments thereon" and decide. I will not."
Another critical mistake that Husted made was to misidentify the central issues before himself and the Stark BOE.
He says: The central issue of the protest is whether Mr. Maier satisfies the educational or supervisory requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(9).
But in reality the effect of the Balas-Bratton protest hearing case was to persuasively challenge George T. Maier's meeting any of the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(8) and (9).
Moreover, in his decision, Husted says not one word about St. John's right as a matter of law given his self-articulated bias in area media reports of having disqualified himself to sit in judgment of Maier's qualifications.
Nonetheless, punting the ball in the fashion he did could work for Team Maier (i.e. "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct in its decision, it only has to be the Supreme Court).
In doing so, he once again reduces the Maier forces to "the hope and a prayer" status that they had in awaiting his decision.
But punting also presents an opportunity that otherwise would not have been available to Team Balas-Bratton had Husted gone for and made a touchdown, or at the very least a first down in terms of strength of argument to get the BOE tie (Republican members Braden and Cline for keeping Maier off the ballot; Democratic members St. John and Ferruccio for placing him on the ballot) broken by the ultimate decider in Team Maier's favor.
How is Team Balas-Bratton (through the Ohio Supreme Court) to get through the Team Maier defense to "block the punt?"
Answer?
- St. John is ineligible to be a team member and thereby provides Team Balas-Bratton with a "gap in the defensive line" through which to "block that punt," and/or
- Ferruccio being "out-of-position" and having called the wrong blocking scheme to prevent a blocked punt,
So that is the football metaphor of things to come.
For the SCPR readers who prefer a non-sports approach here are the actual Balas-Bratton arguments. (LINK to Ohio Supreme Court filed Writ of Prohibition)
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)
32. Relator incorporates by reference herein paragraphs nos. 1 through 31, inclusive, hereinabove.
33. By and through his active participation in the subject
Protest hearing, BOE Member St. John denied Relator her due process right to a non-biased guasi-judicial tribunal.
34. By and through the Secretary's failure and refusal to remove or suspend BOE Member St, John from participating in the subject Protest hearing, he denied Relator her due process right to a non-biased quasi-judicial tribunal.
35. Had the denial of due process referred to in paragraphs nos, 33 and 34 hereinabove not occurred, BOE Member St. John's aforesaid motion would have failed for want of a second and the BOE's vote on Relator's Protest would have been 2 to 1 in favor of granting that Protest; i.e., there would have been no tie vote for the Secretary to break.
36. In allowing BOE Member St, John's Protest hearing participation and attendant motion and vote, the Secretary exercised and continues to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise was and is unauthorized by law; and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in.injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".
37. Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Secretary from recognizing BOE Member St. John's motion and vote against her Protest.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)
38. Relator incorporates by reference herein paragraphs nos. 1 through 37, inclusive, hereinabove.
39. Via his aforesaid decision, the Secretary exercised and continues to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise was and is unauthorized by law; and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".
40. Because of the Secretary's aforesaid decision, the BOE is about to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise is unauthorized by law/ and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".
41. Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting the BOE and the Secretary from including Maier on the May Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Stark County Sheriff.
Within a very few days, Team Maier leader and attorney Thomas Rosenberg (with the Ohio attorney general's office and the BOE's legal counsel in the mix) will be responding to the Balas-Bratton arguments.
The question is whether or not Rosenberg can fix the holes created by St. John and Ferruccio?
The SCPR thinks not.
However, remember: "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct, it just has to be the Supreme Court."
Therein lies yet another opportunity for the Maier factor to realize once again (as with Husted) "a hope and prayer!"
No comments:
Post a Comment