Source: http://omaaohio.org/blog/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:48:18+00:00

Document:
Yesterday, the ad hoc interested parties group completed its review of proposed amendments to ORC 2930, and some related provisions in Titles 21 & 29, designed to provide context for the Marsy’s Law Amendments to the Ohio Constitution which went into effect back on February 5th. This behemoth of a document (at last count, apx 250 pages) constitutes the best collective efforts of the group to provide guidance on Victim’s Rights notification. The next step is introduction at the General Assembly – while the goal of the group was to have the piece introduced as a bill prior to Memorial Day, only time can tell if it will be acted upon that quickly. I anticipate having a “clean” copy (containing all of the revisions made in the 6-7 days of wordsmithing) soon and there will be a presentation on the legislative efforts at the OMAA July Criminal Institute – hope to see you there!
Yesterday, the interested parties group gathered to hammer out a proposed bill designed to incorporate the requirements of Marsy’s Law into the Ohio Revised Code finished their initial review of the working draft. Led by Cathy Harper Lee and Elizabeth Well of the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center, the working group met over the course of four days to review just over 200 pages of proposed legislative changes.
A meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 13th to review the completed first draft and assure that the necessary changes have been made. Upon completion, the proposed bill will be sent to the LSC to be prepared for introduction in the General Assembly.
By: Lisa Soronen, State and Local Legal Center, Washington, D.C.
The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) files Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Big Seven national organizations representing state and local governments.
*Indicates a case where the SLLC has filed or will file an amicus brief. The Supreme Court’s docket is now set.
The SLLC Supreme Court Preview for Local Governments discussed a number of “big” cases the Supreme Court agreed to decide this term as of last summer on topics including the travel ban, religious liberty, and technology and parties and the Fourth Amendment. Since then the Supreme Court has agreed to decide a challenge to the newest version of the travel ban, a very significant public sector collective bargaining case, and a number of First Amendment cases—one of which is discussed in this article.
But South Dakota v. Wayfair tops all of these cases. If South Dakota wins states and local governments finally will be able to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) the Supreme Court held that states cannot require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales tax. The Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn Quill in South Dakota v. Wayfair.* In March 2015 in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion stating that the “legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill.” In response South Dakota passed a law requiring remote vendors to collect sales tax. South Dakota’s highest state court ruled that the South Dakota law is unconstitutional because it clearly violates Quill and it is up to the Supreme Court to overrule it.
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent “agency shop” arrangements where public employees who do not join the union are still required to pay their “fair share” of union dues for collective-bargaining, contract administration, and grievance-adjustment. The rationale for an agency fee is that the union may not discriminate between members and nonmembers in performing these functions. So no free-riders are allowed. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees the Court will decide whether to overrule Abood. In Harris v. Quinn (2014) the Supreme Court refused to extend Abood to Medicaid home health care providers because they aren’t “full-fledged” public employees. Justice Alito’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia (now deceased), Kennedy, and Thomas, was very critical of Abood discussing at length its “questionable analysis.” Justice Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, included a lengthy and vigorous defense of Abood.
In Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach* the Supreme Court will decide whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim. At a city council meeting Fane Lozman offered comments about former county commissioners who had served in other communities being arrested. A councilperson had Lozman arrested for refusing to stop talking. He sued the City claiming they arrested him in violation of his First Amendment free speech rights for opposing the City’s redevelopment plan. The City argued Lozman was arrested for violating the City’s rule that comments during the public comment period must relate to City business. A jury ruled against Lozman. The Eleventh Circuit held that the jury’s finding of probable cause to arrest Lozman for disturbing a lawful assembly wasn’t against the great weight of evidence. The Eleventh Circuit then concluded because the arrest was supported by probable cause Lozman’s First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim failed as a matter of law.
Conclusion This Supreme Court term is particularly exciting for local governments. Usually most of the Court’s biggest cases don’t directly impact local governments. Between the sales tax case and the collective bargaining case that is simply not so this term. As the First Amendment retaliatory arrest case illustrates many the Court’s more run-of-the-mine case are interesting as well.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.