Above Photo:Β A 2012 anti-fracking protest in Ohio.Β Bill Baker,Β CCΒ BY–NC–NDΒ 2.0
For years, local Ohioans have been told by courts and elected officials that they have no control over fracking β βit is a matter of stateΒ law.β
However, groups of determined residents are refusing to accept this argument, taking steps to establish local democratic control over what they see as vital societal questions of health, safety, and planetary survival. But not without resistance from their ownΒ governments.
In recent years, Ohio has seenΒ fracking-induced earthquakes, contaminated waterways, and new proposals for natural gas pipelines and compressor stations, all amidst the accelerating march of climate change. Together, these events have brought the fight against fracking to a fever pitch for the BuckeyeΒ State.
Fed up, residents have taken to the local ballot initiative process β by which citizens write, petition for, and vote on legislation β to propose βCommunity Bill of Rightsβ ordinances to ban fracking, injection wells, and associated infrastructure for natural gas production and transportation. Their efforst areΒ part of aΒ growingΒ nationwide Community RightsΒ movement
This summer, citizens of Medina, Portage, Athens, and Meigs counties collected signatures for county-wide ballot initiatives that would establish new county charters and enshrine rights to local democratic control over fossil fuel development. All four gathered enough signatures to get on their respective November ballots. Normally, that would be enough. But not in Ohio, where Secretary of State and gubernatorial hopeful Jon Husted has done everything he can to stymie the movementβs use of directΒ democracy.
It is a rematch fromΒ last year, which ended in the Ohio Supreme Court pulling three county-wide initiatives β in Medina, Fulton, and Athens counties β from their ballots, just weeks before the November 2015Β elections.
The court battle came after Husted claimed βunfettered authorityβ to determine the legality of local initiatives, before they go to a vote. Though his power grab was struck down by the court, Husted won the case on a technicality, and no votes were cast. The court ruled that the county initiatives failed to define a new βform of government,β a requirement for new county charters, which all the initiativesΒ proposed.
Making Adjustments forΒ 2016
This year, petitioners fine-tuned their initiatives to insure they would satisfy the βform of governmentβ requirement; though they argue the requirement is being politically applied. Nonetheless, petitioners updated their initiatives, going so far as to detail how county coroners will be compensated under the newΒ charters.
With Hustedβs power to remove local ballot initiatives squashed, he has turned to organizing county boards of elections β appointed by Husted himself β to do his bidding. The links between Husted, the boards of elections, and the industry are clear. In Meigs county, for example, one member of the board of elections is Ohio Gas Association President Jimmy Stewart, and in March 2016, theΒ Ohio Oil and Gas Association hosted a fundraiserΒ forΒ Husted.
In July, the county boards of elections in Meigs, Portage, and Athens all voted 4-0 to pull their measures from the ballot. The boards of elections say the measures are invalid because they do not delineate every single duty of all county officers. In Medina β where a local judge and prosecutor have cautiously resisted theΒ NEXUSΒ natural gas pipeline and a gas compressor station β the board split 2-2. The decision was then put to Husted, who broke the tie in favor of the fossil fuelΒ industry.
Petitioners in all four counties are filing appeals. βItβs a form of voter suppression,β said Tish OβDell of the Ohio Community Rights Network, who has worked with Ohio communities since 2012 to propose and pass similarΒ measures.
Meigs, Portage, and Athens petitioners have filed protests against their boards of elections, but like Medinaβs tie breaker vote, their protests will be sent to Hustedβs desk. If and when he denies them, petitioners say they will appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Medinaβs appeal of Hustedβs tie-breaking vote will head straight to the Ohio SupremeΒ Court.
Husted is doing his best to expand on the 2015 Ohio Supreme Court decision, which recognized an βalternative basis for invalidating [ ] charter petitions.β Namely, via the βform of governmentβ requirement. Upon closer look, however, it appears that a basic assumption underpinning the tactic isΒ flawed.
In 2015 the courtΒ clarified that Husted and boards of elections have no authority to rule on the legality or constitutionality of petitions. The basis of Hustedβs argument is that the βform of governmentβ question is an administrative one, not a legal one. But the requirement comes from the Ohio Constitution; ruling on it requires interpreting theΒ constitution.
Athens Countyβs own county prosecutor pointed this out in a letter to his board of elections, advising them to place their initiative on the ballot. βIt is the Judicial Branch and not the Executive Branch that is to interpret issues of Constitutionality,β the prosecutor writes. βThe Board [of Elections] should perform a ministerial function and allow the initiative process to take place if the number of signatures required are valid and properly presented.β Instead, the Athens County Board of Elections invalidated the initiative because it βrelies on the [Ohio] Revised Code to determine qualifications and salaries of electedΒ officials.β
Democracy atΒ Stake
In his tie-breaking decision for Medina, Husted points to the only other Ohio county charters that were passed via the initiative process β in Summit and Cuyahoga counties β as positive examples of how the 2016 measures should beΒ written.
Hustedβs office declined to comment on how the Summit and Cuyahoga initiatives satisfied the βform of governmentβ requirement and what distinguishes them from those being proposed for the November 2016 election. βIt would be inappropriate to offer additional comment while the matter is pending before our office,β wrote an Ohio Secretary of State spokesperson in anΒ email.
In their appeals, the petitioners argue that the Summit and Cuyahoga examples actually supportΒ theirΒ argument. In protest, the petitioners point out that the Ohio County Commissioners Handbook βnotes that neither Summit County nor Cuyahoga Countyβ¦have followedβ the form of governmentΒ requirement.
Ohioβs county boards of elections and Secretary of State give no guidance for petitioners on how they can satisfy this βform of governmentβ standard. When queried by DeSmog, the Secretary of Stateβs office gave no comment on this. As a result, petitioners are left guessing and the democratic process held hostage by the personal interpretations of boards of elections and the Secretary ofΒ State.
Climate atΒ Stake
Meanwhile, climate change is accelerating by leaps and bounds. Anthrax bacteria are beingΒ liberatedΒ by thawing permafrost, Lake Erie is warming, melting glaciersΒ could releaseΒ Cold War-era toxic waste buried beneath Greenlandβs ice,Β the Zika virusΒ has hit the United States, ecosystems are becoming unbound, and the sea continues toΒ rise.
But for the oil and gas industry, millions of dollars are at stake in this local ballot battleground. The anti-fracking ballot initiatives would have immediate impacts not only on extraction and injection of fracking waste, but on large infrastructure projects βΒ like theΒ NEXUSΒ pipeline, which is slated to carry fracked gas across Ohio but is seeing opposition from local residents who are holding up the project. According toΒ NEXUSΒ court documents, for every month of delay, the pipeline project loses $17 million. In Medina, the project is a year behindΒ schedule.
The pipeline, which proposes to pump 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas through Ohio each day, has been met with opposition again and again. Defiant private property owners and county prosecutors and judges have postponed land surveying, jeopardizingΒ NEXUSβs permit application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The last thing the pipelineβs owner, Spectra Energy, needs is a legal fight against a new county charter. For Spectra, the drawn-out nature of the democratic process currently at play in Ohio is aΒ liability.
Regardless of the accuracy of their legal arguments, the actions of Ohio Secretary of State Husted and the boards of elections have already affected thatΒ process.
Every day the measures are caught up in court is a day of full-out campaigning lost. Among the uncertainty, petitioners continue to campaign as though the measures will be voted on this fall. And if they are refused the ballot, Ohio petitioners say they will try again next year. And the year after that. And the one afterΒ that.