Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 04, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Transcription

1 Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed September 04, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO ex rel. WALKER, et al., ) ) Relators, ) Case No ) v. ) ) Expedited Election Case JOHN HUSTED, SECRETARY OF ) Pursuant to S.C.R.P STATE OF OHIO, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) JOANNE DOVE PRISLEY, et al., ) ) Intervening-Respondents ) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE OHIO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ATHENS-MEIGS FARM BUREAU, FULTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU, AND MEDINA COUNTY FARM BUREAU IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT JOHN HUSTED, SECRETARY OF STATE OF OHIO Chad A Endsley ( ) (Counsel of Record) Leah F. Curtis ( ) Amy M. Milam ( ) Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 280 N. High Street, Floor 6 P.O. Box Columbus, OH Telephone: (614) Facsimile: (614) cendsley@ofbf.org lcurtis@ofbf.org amilam@ofbf.org Counsel for Amici Curiae Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Athens-Meigs Farm Bureau, Fulton County Farm Bureau, and Medina County Farm Bureau

2 James Kinsman ( ) P.O. Box Cincinnati, Ohio Phone: (513) Co-Counsel for Relators Walker et.al Terry J. Lodge ( ) 316 N. Michigan St., Suite 520 Toledo, OH Phone: (419) Co-Counsel for Relators Walker et.al Charles Saunders ( ) Saunders Law Office LLC 6772 US Highway 20 Metamora, OH Phone: (419) Fax: (877) Counsel for Proposed Intervening Respondents Charles Saunders, R.J. Lumbrezer, and Roy Norman Curt C. Hartman ( ) The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman 7395 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8 Cincinnati, OH Phone: (513) hartmanlawfirm@fuse.net Counsel for Intervening Respondent Mark Overholt The Honorable Michael DeWine ( ) Ohio Attorney General 30 East Broad Street, 17 th Floor Columbus, OH Telephone: (614) Counsel for Respondent John Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio Kurt A. Tunnell( ) Anne Marie Sferra ( ) Bricker & Eckler LLP 100 South Third Street Phone: (614) Facsimile: (614) ktunnell@bricker.com asferra@bricker.com Counsel for Respondent John Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio Michael M. Hollingsworth ( ) 39 N. College Street P.O. Box 428 Athens, Ohio Phone: (740) mike@mmhlaw.us Counsel for Intervening Respondent Joanne Dove Prisley ii

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iv I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 III. THE INTEREST OF THE AMICI... 1 IV. ARGUMENT... 3 A. The Secretary of State upheld his duty under R.C to review charter petitions for validity and sufficiency The validity of a petition is dependent upon compliance with both Ohio law and signature requirements The petition itself must comport with the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Revised Code and the Secretary must review for these requirements The Secretary rightfully reviewed the petition for validity and sufficiency of signatures as is required by statute The law provides that the Secretary of State s decision is final B. The Petitions lack of compliance with Article X, Section 3 serve as additional grounds to support the Secretary of State s decision to invalidate the Petitions C. The Petitions seek to supersede the general laws of Ohio and to give powers not afforded by the General Assembly to existing county governments D. The signature gathering initiative was ripe for misinformation and misleading voters V. CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Green v. Cuyahoga County, 195 Ohio App. 3d 768, 2011-Ohio-5493, 961 N.E. 2d State ex rel. Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. Of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 437, 2007-Ohio-5379, 875 N.E.2d State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corporation, et al., Ohio St.3d, 2015-Ohio-485, N.E. 3d State ex. rel Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. Of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-4310, 977 N.E.2d 590,... 6, 7 Whitman v. Hamilton, 97 Ohio St.3d 216, 2002-Ohio-5923, 778 N.E.2d Ohio Constitutional Provisions Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3... passim Ohio Statutes R.C R.C R.C R.C passim R.C Other Authorities Athens County Charter 2015 Facebook page, (July 15, 2015) available at / ?fref=ts (accessed August 26, 2015) Charter of Cuyahoga County, (2010, last amended November 2014) available at (accessed August 26, 2015) Charter of Summit County, Ohio (1979, last amended June 2002) available at =whdrane:ohsummit (accessed August 26, 2015) iv

5 Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Press Release: Athens Launches Second Community Rights County Charter Campaign, (April 21, 2015) available at: (accessed August 26, 2015) Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Press Release: Medina Launches Community Rights County Charter Campaign, (April 15, 2015) available at (accessed August 26, 2015) Hoxie, Signatures gathered to put Nexus Pipeline to vote, Toledo News Now (Jun. 24, 2015) available at (accessed August 26, 2015) v

6 I. INTRODUCTION The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation together with the Athens-Meigs Farm Bureau, Fulton County Farm Bureau, and Medina County Farm Bureau (collectively, Farm Bureau ) are filing this amicus brief in response to the writ of mandamus filed by Relators in Athens, Fulton, and Medina Counties regarding the Ohio Secretary of State s action to invalidate Petitions for Charter Government in Athens, Fulton and Medina Counties (hereinafter, the Petitions. ) For the reasons stated below, Farm Bureau urges this court to reject this writ and allow the Secretary of State s decision to stand. II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Farm Bureau incorporates fully herein the statement of the case and facts as presented by Respondent, Secretary of the State of Ohio. III. THE INTEREST OF THE AMICI The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation is Ohio s largest general farm organization, representing nearly 200,000 member families. The Ohio Farm Bureau is a federation of 86 member-county Farm Bureaus, representing Ohio s 88 counties. Included in these 86 member-county Farm Bureaus are the Athens-Meigs Farm Bureau, Fulton County Farm Bureau, and Medina County Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau members in these and every other county of the state serve on boards and committees working on legislation, regulations, and issues that affect agriculture, rural areas, and Ohio s citizens in general. Many members are involved in farm and agribusiness activities, including crop and livestock production, food processing, commodity processing, conditioning and handling, biofuel production, and greenhouse operations. Members of the Farm Bureau run the gamut from large to small businesses. 1

7 Farm Bureau members are also integral parts of their communities and local governments. Many members serve in various local government positions, from township trustee, to county commissioner, to school board member and beyond. County Farm Bureau boards are continuously engaging with local officials to discuss the workings of their local government, and how that government can be improved to better serve the people in their communities. Annually, county Farm Bureaus engage in a policy development process which almost invariably includes at least one session where local officials are invited to interact directly with members, often over a meal, and provided the opportunity to give their own thoughts on the needs of the community. Farm Bureau members pride themselves on being educated voters and involved citizens that work together to find solutions to the problems of their communities. The proposed Petitions could have a deleterious effect upon the farming way of life in the subject counties. Provisions within the Petitions could easily be construed to prohibit all agricultural production, or at least make it so regulated that agricultural production is practically impossible. Furthermore, the rights granted within the Petitions could open farmers, and nearly all citizens and business owners, up to significant legal liability from their own communities. Farm Bureau submitted an amicus brief, the contents of which are largely reflected herein, to the Secretary of State as he considered the validity of these petitions. As an organization with a keen interest, and a storied past, in supporting good government, Ohio Farm Bureau respectfully asks the Court to uphold the Secretary of State s decision. 2

8 IV. ARGUMENT The writ should not be granted because the Secretary of State properly followed the duties assigned to him under Ohio law. Furthermore, the Petitions were rightly invalidated because they failed to comply with the requirements under the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law to be a valid charter petition submitted to the electors of a county. The Petitions also attempted to improperly supersede and circumvent state and federal law through their provision of various rights. Finally, the signature gathering effort was ripe for the misleading of well-intentioned voters who may not have been given the full information as to what they put their signatures behind. A. The Secretary of State upheld his duty under R.C to review charter petitions for validity and sufficiency. Under the statutory scheme developed by the Ohio General Assembly, the Secretary of State s duty to review a charter petition is triggered by the filing of an objection by a qualified voter in the county in question. R.C (B). In each of the three counties, an objection was timely filed by a qualified voter with the Secretary of State within the time allotted. The Secretary, under his duty as described in R.C was required to review the validity of the petition and the signatures. Ohio Secretary of State John Husted properly performed his duty under the law, and his actions should be upheld. 1. The validity of a petition is dependent upon compliance with both Ohio law and signature requirements. Under R.C , the Ohio Secretary of State is charged with determining the validity of a petition once a protest has been filed by an elector. In paragraph (C), the statute reads, in part: The secretary of state, within ten days after receipt of the protests, shall determine the validity or invalidity of the petition and the sufficiency or insufficiency 3

9 of the signatures. R.C (C) (emphasis added). The statute s plain language provides that the petition at hand must be reviewed by the Secretary of State for not just sufficiency of signatures, but also the validity of the petition itself. The language signifies that the drafters intended the Secretary to not only review the signatures affixed to the petition, but to also look into the four corners of the petition document itself to ensure compliance with the law. 2. The petition itself must comport with the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Revised Code and the Secretary must review for these requirements. In the Secretary of State s review of the petition for validity, the Secretary must consider both the requirements of the Ohio Constitution and the laws of Ohio governing such petitions. A county in Ohio is regarded as a political subdivision of the state itself. Green v. Cuyahoga County, 195 Ohio App. 3d 768, 2011-Ohio-5493, 961 N.E. 2d 1171, 7. The Ohio Constitution dictates that the government and organization of counties shall be provided by the General Assembly, and allows for the General Assembly to provide by general law alternative forms of county government. Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 1. The Constitution further goes on to provide that counties may, through the approval of the electorate, adopt a county charter. Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3. This section of the Ohio Constitution also provides requirements which must be met in regards to a charter petition proposed for county government. These requirements include determining which officers will be elected and the manner of the election, as well as providing for the exercise of all powers vested in, and the performance of all duties imposed upon counties and county officers by law. Id. 4

10 The General Assembly further defined the process of proposing a county charter through R.C and R.C which delineates the technical requirements of submitting and voting upon a county charter. Importantly, R.C requires that attached to the petition must be a copy of the proposed charter. The statute goes on to state that the charter will be considered to be attached to the petition if it is printed as a part of the petition, and that although separate petition papers can be used, each part must have a copy of the charter attached as a part of the petition. R.C Therefore, the charter becomes a part of the petition for which the Secretary of State is charged with review under R.C The Secretary rightfully reviewed the petition for validity and sufficiency of signatures as is required by statute. As evidenced by the Secretary s thorough opinion, see Relator s Exhibit E: Secretary of State Decision, the review conducted by the Secretary considered both the validity of the petition itself and the sufficiency of the signatures attached thereto. The Secretary rightfully determined, within the discretion given to him by law, that the text of the petition itself did not comport with Ohio law sufficiently so as to be put before the voters in Athens, Fulton, and Medina counties. While the Relators argue that the Secretary should not be permitted to review the contents of their petition documents, the law plainly states, twice, that the Secretary must determine the validity or invalidity of the petition (emphasis added). R.C (C), (D). The Secretary fulfilled that duty by reviewing the petitions and signatures, and issuing a timely decision to the Boards of Election in Athens, Fulton, and Medina counties. 5

11 Relators argue that the Secretary could not review the contents of the petition, and for that point cite State ex. rel Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. Of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-4310, 977 N.E.2d 590, 12, and State ex rel. Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. Of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 437, 2007-Ohio-5379, 875 N.E.2d , as proof that [i]t is long-established that the substance of the charter proposals, as duly-initiated referenda, is off-limits to pre-election protest. Relator s Complaint at 24. However, neither Kilby nor Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery deals with a county charter proposal subject to the pertinent provisions of the Ohio Constitution or R.C The Secretary of State is granted the right, under the legislature s drafting of R.C , to determine the validity of a charter and to consider any and all information including information not put before him by the original protestors in determining the validity of the petition. Kilby dealt with a city charter amendment, over which the Secretary does not have this same review power. Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery similarly dealt with a proposed city ordinance by initiative petition where the Secretary does not hold a review power. While interesting cases, neither case speaks to the situation at hand. In R.C , the Secretary is given the duty to review the validity of the petition itself. While Kilby and Citizen Action for a Livable Montgomery are both informative as to city government, they do not pertain to county charters of the type at issue in this case. 4. The law provides that the Secretary of State s decision is final. Importantly overlooked by Relators and conveniently left out of their arguments is the final sentence of R.C (C): The determination by the secretary of state is final. Relators ask the court to overturn the Secretary of State s decision and force him to overrule the objections filed by qualified voters in the subject counties. While certainly 6

12 citizens should be able to utilize the writ of mandamus to require elected officials to perform their required duties, a writ should not be utilized to question the expertise or reasoning for a decision made in accordance with a statute, so long as the duty has been fulfilled. Unless fraud, corruption, or abuse of discretion are afoot, or the Secretary acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions, there are no grounds to reverse the Secretary s decision. Whitman v. Hamilton, 97 Ohio St.3d 216, 2002-Ohio-5923, 778 N.E.2d 32, 11 quoted in State ex rel. Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St. 3d 184, 2012-Ohio-4310, 187, 977 N.E.2d 590, 8. As the Secretary followed the statutory process to the letter, and there have been no allegations of fraud, corruption or even an abuse of discretion, the Secretary s decision must stand. The legislature could have been no clearer in authoring R.C (C), that the Secretary holds the role of decision-maker when it comes to ensuring Ohio s voters are faced with valid charter petitions at the ballot box. As the official charged with ensuring Ohio has fair elections throughout the state, it makes sense that the legislature would require the Secretary to ensure voters would not arrive at the ballot box to vote upon a document that did not fulfill the constitutional and statutory requirements of a county charter. While a writ of mandamus would be appropriate had the Secretary refused to issue a decision, or not done so within the time limits set by the statute, or if he had reviewed the petitions in response to untimely objections, this case involves none of those procedural irregularities. Instead, in the case at hand the Secretary followed his statutory duty to review the petitions for validity, as well as for the sufficiency of signatures. The Secretary did so in a timely manner, as required by statute. The Secretary considered both the 7

13 contents of the protests, as well as any other matters before him, as the statute allows. Finally, the Secretary issued a decision as required by R.C B. The Petitions lack of compliance with Article X, Section 3 serve as additional grounds to support the Secretary of State s decision to invalidate the Petitions. The Ohio Secretary of State provided a review of reasons he considered pertinent to require him to invalidate the petitions. Even further, a number of other reasons existed as to why the charters must be invalidated, and therefore the Secretary was correct in his action to invalidate the Petitions. The Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3 allows for the adoption of a charter by a county for organization of the county s government. This section also provides within it the most basic provisions that should be included within a charter as contemplated by the Ohio Constitution. The Petitions fail to meet these basic requirements and therefore had to be ruled invalid. Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3 requires that the charter shall provide the form of government of the county and shall determine which of its officers shall be elected and the manner of their election. (emphasis added). The Petitions do not fulfill this provision and do not even mention the form of government to be utilized. Instead, the Petitions provide that every aspect of government not governed by this Charter...shall be continued without interruption in accord with the Ohio Constitution and the laws of Ohio that are in force at the time of adoption See e.g. Relator s Exhibit A: Fulton County Charter Petition, Article IV, Section The Petitions do not provide any indication of what form the county government will take, how the new powers of home rule will be distributed, or how the current independently-elected county officials shall interact. The 8

14 Petitions make no explanation of the manner of electing any officials, or even what officials specifically there will be in this new charter government. The Petitions, instead, require that all the powers vested in municipalities by the Constitution or general law shall be afforded to the county, and all such powers will presumably be exercised and enforced by the County Commissioners. See e.g. Relator s Exhibit A: Fulton County Charter Petition, Art. III, Sec This grant of all municipal powers to the Commissioners, without accounting for the other various county officers, creates an illogical result. For a simple example, County Commissioners would now have the power to create their own police department, as is provided to municipalities in general law through R.C But what then becomes of the County Sheriff, which the Petitions make no mention of and presumably would leave in place? What shall be the Sheriff s place in any new possibly created county police department? This result is precisely why the Ohio Constitution requires that the form of government be detailed in the charter, along with which officers should be elected and how their election should take place. The Petitions lack information that is integral for the formation and working of a charter government under Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3. For this reason, the Petitions were rightfully ruled invalid and removed from the ballot. C. The Petitions seek to supersede the general laws of Ohio and to give powers not afforded by the General Assembly to existing county governments. The Petitions represent a dangerous circumvention of Ohio law to provide county governments with powers not afforded by the General Assembly. Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3 was intended to allow for the electors of a county to petition for the restructuring of their county governments along with the possibility of expansive home 9

15 rule powers. It can be assumed the drafters of the amendment predicted that growth in population and development of communities over time could result in the desire for a government structured differently to be better attuned to communities of a future era. In practice, the use of a county charter has been approved in two counties of Ohio. The charters of Summit and Cuyahoga counties are in stark contrast to those submitted in Athens, Fulton and Medina counties. See Charter of Summit County, Ohio (1979, last amended June 2002) available at hdrane:ohsummit (accessed August 26, 2015); Charter of Cuyahoga County, (2010, last amended November 2014) available at CuyahogaCounty.aspx (accessed August 26, 2015). Where the Summit and Cuyahoga county charters go into significant detail regarding the representative legislative body of the county, the delegation of duties formerly held by independent elected county offices, the powers of a county executive, and the transition of power to the new county government, the Petitions lack all of these important provisions. Instead, the Petitions provide a list of rights, of which supposedly a county cannot abridge and grants home rule power to what the Petitions call the existing county government. The drafters of the Petition are attempting to sit as the General Assembly and create a list of prohibitions and parameters for the actions of the county government itself, rather than to structure a new government as was done in both of the counties with existing charter governments and as was intended by Ohio Constitution, Article X, Section 3. The drafters have confused a charter, which should provide for a government structure, 10

16 with the types of prohibitions which should be found in ordinances or zoning regulations. For this reason, the Petitions were rightfully ruled invalid and removed from the ballot. D. The signature gathering initiative was ripe for misinformation and misleading voters. Finally, the Farm Bureau is concerned the promotion and circulation of these Petitions may have been misleading to Ohio voters. Publicity surrounding the Petitions suggested the purpose was to limit energy development, be it oil and gas drilling, wastewater disposal, or pipeline construction in Ohio communities. For example, a post on the Athens County Charter 2015 Facebook page on July 15, 2015 at 8:59 pm, identified as from the chairman of the petition effort, Dick McGinn, stated: Congratulations to everyone who has worked so hard to get us to this point. Now it is on to the campaign to pass the Charter and Bill of Rights and to stop the injection wells. We must work hard to win the election in all 14 townships of Athens County! (emphasis added). Athens County Charter 2015 Facebook page, (July 15, 2015) available at / ?fref=ts (accessed August 26, 2015). The press release announcing the Athens County Charter initiative in April 2015 also focused on using a charter to stop oil and gas development, fracking, and injection wells. Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Press Release: Athens Launches Second Community Rights County Charter Campaign, (April 21, 2015) available at: (accessed August 26, 2015). The press release announcing the Medina County Charter initiative, also in April 11

17 2015, similarly references the NEXUS pipeline, and strongly suggests a county charter will stop the pipeline s construction. Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Press Release: Medina Launches Community Rights County Charter Campaign, (April 15, 2015) available at (accessed August 26, 2015). Finally, and most telling, is an article from Toledo News Now, titled Signatures gathered to put Nexus Pipeline to vote. The story states land owners dropped off over a thousand signatures in hopes of putting the Nexus Pipeline to a vote come November. Hoxie, Signatures gathered to put Nexus Pipeline to vote, Toledo News Now (Jun. 24, 2015) available at (accessed August 26, 2015). A citizen was interviewed about her decision to sign the Fulton County Petition and the story states she signed the petition because: [T]he County Charter would give residents a say by putting the pipeline to a vote this November. Id. Farm Bureau strongly supports the private property rights of individual landowners, including their choice to allow for oil and gas or other energy development on their property. However, the law of Ohio has been settled under the Court s recent decision in State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corporation, et al., Ohio St.3d, 2015-Ohio-485, N.E. 3d, that even communities with inherent home rule power lack the ability to prohibit these types of activities. Instead, the state holds the authority to regulate oil and gas energy development, including permitting and siting. Id. at 30. Therefore, it is Farm Bureau s concern that voters in the communities where the Petitions were offered may have been led to believe that such efforts would hamper, hinder or stop completely energy 12

18 development in their area. Not only is this impossible through a county charter or any home rule government for that matter these Petitions create the unintended (and likely widely unknown) effect of new restrictions on the citizens of the county and new expansive powers granted to county governments without important forethought or discussion. Furthermore, the Petitions seek to change other settled points of general law which cannot be altered by the conferring of home rule status. For example, the charters purport to strip corporations of their legal rights and invalidate permits or licenses granted by other entities which supposedly abridge the rights listed in the charters. The power of eminent domain, specifically for the transportation of oil and gas, is prohibited which also appears to be an attempt to supersede federal law providing eminent domain power in interstate pipeline construction, as well as state law providing for eminent domain in certain utility situations. See generally R.C , These provisions, despite the promises of the petition promoters and to the false belief of the petition signers, can have absolutely no prospect of actual implementation since Ohio and federal law is settled and supersedes such local charters be they municipal, county, or otherwise. In particular, the Athens Petition prohibits aspects of oil and gas development which, as previously mentioned, the Ohio Supreme Court has already ruled in Morrison is not within the province of a home rule community. See Relator s Exhibit C: Athens County Charter Petition, Article II, Section The charter proposed in these Petitions contains a severability clause, seeking to leave standing any surviving portions of the charter after other portions get struck down by the legal challenges which will certainly ensue. What may be left is an unwieldy, swisscheese charter with a plethora of unintended consequences and legal bills for local 13

19 communities. Because of the concern of inaccurate presentation of these charter initiatives, Farm Bureau has concerns regarding the information provided to potential signers of the Petitions. Therefore, Farm Bureau supports the Secretary s decision to rule these Petitions invalid and remove them from the ballot. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons detailed above and to protect the voters in the counties of Athens, Fulton and Medina counties, the Farm Bureau respectfully asks the Ohio Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the Ohio Secretary of State to invalidate these Petitions. Respectfully Submitted, Chad A. Endsley ( ) Leah F. Curtis ( ) Amy M. Milam ( ) Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 280 N. High Street, Floor 6 P.O. Box Columbus, OH Telephone: (614) Facsimile: (614) cendsley@ofbf.org lcurtis@ofbf.org amilam@ofbf.org Counsel for Amici Curiae Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Athens-Meigs Farm Bureau, Fulton County Farm Bureau, and Medina County Farm Bureau 14

20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on September 4, 2015, a copy of this Brief was served by electronic or U.S. postal mail upon the following: James Kinsman ( ) P.O. Box Cincinnati, Ohio (513) james@jkinsmanlaw.com Co-Counsel for Relators Walker, et al. Terry J. Lodge ( ) 316 N. Michigan St., Suite 520 Toledo, OH (419) lodgelaw@yahoo.com Co-Counsel for Relators Walker, et al. Charles Saunders ( ) Saunders Law Office LLC 6772 US Highway 20 Metamora, OH saunderslitigation@gmail.com Phone: (419) Fax: (877) Counsel for Proposed Intervening Respondents Charles Saunders, R.J. Lumbrezer, and Roy Norman Curt C. Hartman ( ) The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman 7395 Ridgepoint Drive, Suite 8 Cincinnati, OH Phone: (513) hartmanlawfirm@fuse.net Counsel for Intervening Respondent Mark Overholt The Honorable Michael DeWine ( ) Ohio Attorney General 30 East Broad Street, 17 th Floor Columbus, OH Telephone: (614) Counsel for Respondent John Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio Kurtis A. Tunnell ( ) Anne Marie Sferra ( ) BRICKER & ECKLER LLP 100 South Third Street (614) (phone) (614) (fax) ktunnell@bricker.com asferra@bricker.com Counsel for Respondent Jon Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio Michael M. Hollingsworth ( ) 39 N. College Street P.O. Box 428 Athens, Ohio (740) mike@mmhlaw.us Counsel for Intervening Respondent Joanne Dove Prisley Chad A. Endsley 15