Rothenberg v. Husted
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
This case was an original action challenging the sufficiency of an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment, the purpose of which, as described in the petition, was "to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage." Relator Brian Rothenberg brought the action. The Supreme Court denied the challenge, holding (1) the relator's legal claims lacked merit, and (2) the relator's evidence was insufficient to meet his burden of demonstrating that the petition failed to contain a sufficient number of valid signatures to be submitted to the state's electors at the November 8, 2011 general election.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Rothenberg v. Husted, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4003.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-Ohio-4003 ROTHENBERG v. HUSTED, SECY. OF STATE, ET AL. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Rothenberg v. Husted, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4003.] Elections Initiative petitions Proposed constitutional amendment Challenge to sufficiency of signatures R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) Status of paid circulators as independent contractors does not invalidate partpetitions merely because circulators listed person or entity paying them as person employing them Paid circulators who are not directing the signature-gathering efforts of others are not required to file compensation statement under R.C. 3501.381(A)(1) Challenge denied. (No. 2011-1344 Submitted August 9, 2011 Decided August 12, 2011.) CHALLENGE under Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This is an original action challenging the sufficiency of an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment, the purpose of which, as described in the petition, is to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their SUPREME COURT OF OHIO health care and health care coverage. Because relator, Brian Rothenberg, has not met his burden of demonstrating that the petition failed to contain a sufficient number of valid signatures under Sections 1a and 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution to be submitted to the state s electors at the November 8, 2011 general election, we deny the challenge. S.Ct.Prac.R. 13.1(B). {¶ 2} Relator s legal claims lack merit, and the secretary of state s construction of the applicable statutory provisions is reasonable and is entitled to deference. See State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Exec. Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072, ¶ 23. Partpetitions of compensated circulators are not improperly verified and subject to invalidation simply because the circulators, who might actually be independent contractors, listed the entity or individual engaging or paying them to circulate the petition as the person employing them. See R.C. 3501.38(E)(1), 3519.05, and 3519.06. {¶ 3} Nor are paid petition circulators who are not directing the signature-gathering efforts of others required to file a compensation statement for supervising, managing, or otherwise organizing any effort to obtain signatures for a statewide petition. R.C. 3501.381(A)(1). {¶ 4} Finally, even if his challenge had substantive validity, Rothenberg s evidence is insufficient to establish that the part-petitions do not have enough signatures. {¶ 5} Based on the foregoing, we deny relator s challenge to the petition and the signatures contained therein. By so holding, we recognize, as we did in a previous case involving the proposed amendment, that [t]his result is consistent with our duty to liberally construe the citizens right of initiative in favor of their exercise of this important right. See State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 315, 2010-Ohio-1845, 928 N.E.2d 410, ¶ 66. Challenge denied. 2 January Term, 2011 O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ McTigue & McGinnis, L.L.C., Donald J. McTigue, Mark A. McGinnis, and J. Corey Colombo, for relator. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese, Erick D. Gale, and Michael J. Schuler, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Secretary of State Jon Husted. Maurice A. Thompson; and Langdon Law, L.L.C., David R. Langdon, and Bradley M. Peppo, for respondents Ohio Project, Ohioans for Health Care Freedom, Joseph Bozzi, Steven Carr, Christopher Littleton, Jason Mihalick, and Alan Witten. ______________________ 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
