Didn't we just try to put something else on the ballot?

Ohio Supreme Court says voters can decide lead-paint issue

8/31/2007, 5:31 p.m. ET By JOHN McCARTHY The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The Ohio Supreme Court [1] on Friday ruled that voters can have the last word on whether paint companies should be subjected to paying damages to families whose children were sickened by exposure to lead paint.

The high court on Aug. 1 struck down Democratic Governor Strickland [2]'s Jan. 8 veto of a bill that limited such damages, saying it came after a 10-day time limit for vetoes laid out in the state Constitution.

The court, in Friday's 4-3 ruling, said although Strickland's veto was out of bounds, voters could decide whether the bill should become law by submitting petitions for a referendum. They would have until Oct. 30, or 90 days after the ruling, to come up with enough signatures on petitions to force voters' reconsideration of the law.

The court -- in today's 4-to-3 ruling --says although Strickland's veto was out of bounds, voters could decide whether the bill should become law by submitting petitions for a referendum. They would have until October 30th --or 90 days after the ruling -- to come up with enough signatures on petitions to force voters'

Children are stricken with lead poisoning by eating chipped-off pieces of paint or inhaling its dust. The poisoning can cause irreversible brain damage, can retard mental and physical development and reduce attention span. It can also retard fetal development, even at extremely low levels, according to the federal Consumer Product Safety Division.

Benson Wolman, a civil rights lawyer representing several Ohio-based housing groups, had asked Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to seek the Supreme Court's reconsideration of its ruling. Wolman said the groups likely would collect petition signatures with an eye on the November 2008 ballot. They would need 241,366 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters, or 6 percent of the total 2006 vote for governor.

The law, which placed a $5,000 limit on certain court damages and created new protections for companies that once sold paint with lead in it, was passed by the Republican-controlled state Legislature before its members adjourned in December. Former Gov. Bob Taft, as he left office, intended to let the bill become law without his signature, but the Strickland administration pulled it back.

In a motion filed Aug. 13, Brunner asked the Supreme Court whether Ohioans still had time to circulate referendum petitions to keep the bill from becoming law, or if a 90-day time period for that expired while the bill was tied up in court. Republican lawmakers had sued Brunner — also a Democrat — over the veto.

"The constitutional right of citizens to referendum is of paramount importance," the majority said in an unsigned opinion. "In light of the unique circumstances of this case ... , the only satisfactory solution is to move the beginning of the 90-day referendum period to the date of the (Supreme Court) decision."

The majority ruling is in conflict with the Ohio Constitution, which dictates that the effective date of a bill is 90 days after the governor signs it or allows it to become law, Justice Robert Cupp wrote in a dissent. The Supreme Court, in its Aug. 1 ruling, determined that date was Jan. 5.

"However desirable an extension of time for a referendum in this case may be, it has no authorization in the text of the Constitution and in fact contradicts it," Cupp wrote.

Justice Judith Lanzinger agreed with the majority but objected to what amounts to a 60-day petition signing window, instead of the full 90 days.

Wolman agreed the period is too narrow.

"We're right now in the process of seeing if it could be done in 60 days. Basically, it's never been done in that time period," Wolman said.

Strickland remains opposed to the portion of the law that limits damages, spokesman Keith Dailey said.

"The governor has concerns about this law, specifically that it limits the ability of an individual to seek justice," Dailey said.

The Ohio Manufacturers' Association [3], which filed a brief with the court on behalf of paint makers and other businesses, argued that the opponents of the law have had seven months to challenge it and failed to do so. The group feels it's too early to tell if it will oppose efforts to repeal the law, lobbyist Ryan Augsburger said."

Will they fly planes over Ohio cities and towns saying "Don't sign the petition -- we need lead poisoning!

You want to protect your kids and yourself from poisons the government had foisted on you? Circulate a petition. If you think that a family that has a lead poisoned child has time to leave work and family to circulate petitions... think again. Who is running this ship? And do they have a moral, ethical bone between them?