Opinion ID: 2971622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Citizens and the Ohio Chamber

Text: Applying these principles to the instant case, Citizens and the Ohio Chamber do not dispute that they are subject to ongoing hearings before the OEC. Indeed, both Citizens and the Ohio Chamber are subject to a subpoena from the OEC and a related enforcement proceeding in state court. Nor is it disputed that the OEC hearings are judicial in nature. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n, 457 U.S. at 433 (noting that state administrative proceedings must be “judicial in nature” for the purposes of Younger abstention). OEC hearings are initiated by a complaint, parties may present and cross-examine evidence, and a decision or opinion is issued, often with an explanation. Furthermore, unsuccessful parties may appeal the OEC’s decision in the Franklin County Court of -7- No. 04-3112 Citizens for a Strong Ohio v. Marsh Common Pleas, and if unsuccessful there, may seek further review in Ohio appellate courts. See Ohio Rev. Code § 119.12. Regarding the second prong, Ohio and the OEC’s oversight of state and local elections is clearly an important state interest. Regarding the third prong, litigants before the OEC have an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims. Citizens and the Ohio Chamber do not contend that the OEC has neither the power or expertise necessary to review First Amendment or other federal constitutional arguments. Indeed, the OEC has previously addressed and rejected constitutional claims identical to the arguments raised here, in related litigation. See Common Cause/Ohio v. United States Chamber of Commerce, No. 2000E-058 (Ohio Election Comm’n Order of May 15, 2003). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Citizens and the Ohio Chamber.