|
The
court ruled 5-2 that a 2006 state law forbidding residency
requirements overrides local government home rule powers. The
ruling overturns the decision by a state appeals court that the
state law was unconstitutional because it trampled on local
government rights.
Roughly 130 Ohio cities and villages have some form of a
residency requirement that would be invalidated by the ruling.
Parties to the case have 10 days to file a motion for
reconsideration with the Ohio Supreme Court.
The cities of Akron and Lima, which already had residency laws
on their books, challenged the constitutionality of the state
law once it went into effect. They, along with Cleveland, said
during oral arguments before the court in January that residency
laws helped their tax base, maximized emergency services and
made their workers more responsive to local concerns.
Unions representing local government employees sided with the
state, saying the residency requirements discriminate against
employees who may not be able to live within a city because of
personal reasons, such as family constraints.
``For a long time, this has been an issue that we didn't feel
was right that someone could be forced to live somewhere they
don't want to,'' said Michael Watkins, president of the
Fraternal Order of Police in Lima. Police officers have been
fighting residency requirements since Lima passed an ordinance
in 2000 that requires new hires to live in the city.
Watkins said he thinks the rule has hurt the city's ability to
hire qualified people for some positions because applicants are
not always willing to move.
Lima Mayor David Berger said the court ruling ``gutted'' home
rule for Ohio's cities.
``We want these people to be in our neighborhoods, to be in our
churches,'' Berger said about the city's employees. ``We want
those people to be a part of our community.''
Akron's law director echoed Berger's concerns. Max Rothal said
the city was reviewing the ruling and had not made a decision to
appeal, though he doubted the cities had grounds for a federal
appeal.
Justice Paul Pfeifer, writing for the majority, said the Ohio
Constitution's authorization of the Legislature to enact laws
``providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare
of all employees'' overrode any other legal arguments, because
such arguments _ including those for home rule powers _ would
only erode the power granted to the Legislature.
Pfeifer's opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg
Stratton, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell and Robert Cupp.
Justice Judith Lanzinger
wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority opinion
gave too much power to the Legislature. She was joined by Chief
Justice Thomas Moyer.
Lanzinger said state lawmakers' power to regulate the health and
safety of employees referred only to the performance of their
job duties, not to where they live during non-work hours.
The City of Cleveland, which established its residency law with
a vote of its people in 1982, agreed with Lanzinger's take.
``This decision has given the legislature more authority than
exists in the Ohio constitution,'' said Councilman Kevin Kelley.
``In doing so, the Court has diminished the ability of local
elected officials to govern.''
Paul Hlynsky, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7
representing about 460 Akron police officers, said his
rank-and-file members were delighted with the ruling.
``We're thrilled, we're overjoyed,'' he said. ``There won't be
any mass exodus of police officers. We feel that this will
benefit police officer families. Our mayor touts regionalism all
the time and here he is, trying to force people to live in the
city.''
Associated Press Writers John Seewer in Toledo and Thomas J.
Sheeran in Cleveland contributed to this report.
|
