Home | Back

Streetsboro mayor bid in federal courtroom McClafferty arguing against age restriction

Share_print Print Story    |    Comments    |   

 

By Mike Sever

Record-Courier staff writer

Brett McClafferty’s fight to get on the ballot for Streetsboro mayor made its way into a federal courtroom in Akron Tuesday morning.

Judge Sara Lioi heard arguments for two hours on why she should stop early voting in Portage County and put McClafferty, 21, on the ballot despite a city charter that puts the minimum age for elective office at 23.

Lioi did not render a decision by the end of office hours Tuesday.

Early voting with absentee ballots started statewide on Tuesday. In Portage, voting started at about 11 a.m. and a dozen people cast ballots by closing time, said Linda Marcial, director of the Portage County Board of Elections.

In Tuesday’s court hearing, McClafferty’s attorney, Avery Friedman, argued that Streetsboro’s 2007 charter amendment setting 23 as the minimum age for council or mayor was a direct attack on McClafferty and his political hopes.

Friedman called section 3.02 of the city charter the “anti-McClafferty ordinance.”

He said the charter review committee did not discuss age restrictions until McClafferty came within a vote in the 2007 primary of making it on to the general election ballot.

“There is no question there is a direct connection between Brett McClafferty’s near-victory in the primary of 2007 and the change in the charter,” Friedman said.

Friedman was seeking a preliminary injunction to stop early voting and to put McClafferty on the ballot. How that would be accomplished — whether by stopping and restarting early voting for city voters or by setting up a special election just for the mayor’s job — was not discussed in court.

Streetsboro hired the Columbus firm of Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn Co., LPA, to defend the city in the lawsuit. Attorney John P. Gilligan argued the age limit was no more arbitrary than those in the U.S. Constitution and in various state laws,  which are “sanctioned by time-honored precedent.”

“I don’t think there is one case out there that calls for a minimum age of 23,” rebutted Friedman.

Gilligan said there was no evidence of a conspiracy to keep McClafferty out of elections, or that voters were duped by what Friedman said was the “flipping” of the ordinance language.

The age limit was the last of three provisions on the ballot. The first called for candidates to disclose any criminal convictions, and the second required them to be residents for two years before seeking office.

Friedman said the reverse order basically hid the actual intent of the change, which was to prevent McClafferty from running.

“They gave voters not much of a choice ... the flip worked,” Friedman said.

“That is simply speculation,” Gilligan said.

Lioi questioned why McClafferty did not challenge the charter language when it was first proposed in 2007, and why he did not file suit before Sept. 24.

Friedman said McClafferty had no standing until the election board turned down his challenge on Sept. 3, and it took time to assemble all the materials for the lawsuit.

Gilligan said McClafferty “sat on his rights” until the Sept. 3 board of elections hearing and “has waited literally until the election was beginning to assert this claim.”

Portage County Assistant Prosecutor Denise Smith, representing the elections board, argued McClafferty had standing to challenge the charter since 2007, and that a delay in voting would be harmful to other county voters.

 




Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Recordpub.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Login above or Register to comment.
Jump to Page: 1 2
   Next 10 Comments of 16 Total Comments
16.
    Posted by Uknown October 1, 2009
RJ1664:

It really annoys me to have to try to explain this to you.

One function of the courts is to act as a check on abuses of power.

To punish a citizen merely for attempting, rightly or wrongly, to assert his rights would be in itself an abuse of power.

15.
    Posted by AdamD October 1, 2009
Ship: That could be one of the worse arguements I've ever heard on here.

Do you have the RIGHT to vote for a 28 year old President??

NO!

Is your right to vote being infringed on there???

NO!

If you think it is, I'm sure you should try to see how far you get till laughed out of court.

14.
    Posted by Ship Hits the Sand October 1, 2009
RJ1664:

It IS an incredibly stupid idea.

13.
    Posted by Ship Hits the Sand October 1, 2009
You all are missing the most important point. Everybody has a constitutional right to vote. This right to vote is being infringed by a law that restricts for whom the voters may vote. If you think that is a good thing then you really don't believe in democracy, do you?

12.
    Posted by AdamD October 1, 2009
The residents of Streetsboro should just boycott Pulp and any other business his family tries opening here with Brett's name attached to it. THEN sue Brett to recoup monies paid to their lawyers and staff for the extra burden placed on the city.

11.
    Posted by RJ1664 October 1, 2009
Please explain to my why it is STUPID to get money back that should never have been spent in the first place. BTW, its common practice for a defendent to recoup attourney fees.

10.
    Posted by Uknown September 30, 2009
RJ1664 wrote:

"Here is a good idea ... the city should take him to civil court and recoup the monies paid for the lawyers ... somewhere in the high 10's of thousands of dollars."

Buddy, that is an incredibly STUPID idea.

9.
    Posted by RJ1664 September 30, 2009
One more time people....When the age requirement was put on the ballot AND PASSED by the voters, Mr. Wagner's term wasnt set to expire till 2011. In 2011 Bratt will be at or over the age of 23. Here is a good idea, When Bratt loses his case against the city (which he says he wants to do whats best for) the city should take him to civil court and recoup the monies paid for the lawyers. My guess it will be somewhere in the high 10's of thousands of dollars.

8.
    Posted by AdamD September 30, 2009
My thoughts exactly Vydunas 33! Well said!

Also, age discrimination ONLY protects those discriminated by being too old, not too young.

7.
    Posted by Vydunas September 30, 2009
"Maybe Brett McClafferty's not waiting because he understands his constituional rights are being violated."

Oh? We have a constitutional right to run for public office? Where in the Constitution is that, Retired Guy? And how is that right consistent with the Constitution's own age prohibitions?

If you're concerned about that "constitutional right", why aren't you agitating for reform of ballot access laws, to make the Republicans and Democrats play by the same rules they set for everyone else?

   Next 10 Comments | Home | Back