Feed on

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal and cross-appeal of a Tenth District Court of Appeals ruling ordering that the trial court must conduct a hearing as to whether an Ohio Budget Bill, Am. Sub. H. B. No. 153 , 129th General Assembly violated the One Subject Rule of the Ohio Constitution, because it included a prison privatization measure. See State ex. rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Ass’n v. Ohio, 2013 Ohio 4505 (10th Dist. )The Tenth District reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the case and remanded the case to the trial court, ordering it to conduct a line by line examination of the budget bill to see if the one subject rule was violated.

In its appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, the State asserts that requiring the trial judge to conduct a provision-by-provision analysis of the budget bill results in unconstitutional “judicial line item vetoes”.  Additionally, the plaintiffs only asked that the prison privatization provisions be invalidated, not other parts of the budget bill.  The State also argues that the prison privatization items did not violate the One Subject Rule. See State ex rel. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association  v. State , Ohio Supreme Court case no. 2014-0319.   Docket.

Management and Training Corporation also filed a notice of appeal.

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association and the other plaintiffs in the case filed a cross-appeal, asserting that the prison privitization provisions in the budget bill violate Ohio Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4, which prohibits joint ventures between the State and any company.  Cross-appellants also argue that the Franklin County Court Of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to determine whether the prison employees are public employees, if working for a private contractor pursuant to a contract with the State.  SERB does not have jurisdiction to make this determination.

Leave a Reply