HISTORY Continued...

In 1986, in the landmark decision Renton v. Playtime, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that whereas communities cannot prevent sexually oriented businesses from locating within their boundaries, communities do have a right to zone, license and regulate them in order to protect themselves from the “adverse secondary effects” associated with such businesses.  Those adverse effects include increased crime, decreased property values, urban blight. 

The High Court reached that decision by examining land use studies of numerous major metropolitan areas – studies that proved the link between the presence of sexually oriented businesses and those adverse effects. There have been no reliable studies that refute the conclusions of the studies upon which the Renton decision was based, and Federal courts continue to stand by them. 

NOTE: The only purported attempts to discredit the land use studies upon which the Courts rely come from a UC Santa Barbara Communications Professor Daniel Linz.

Although FEDERAL COURTS consistently reject his findings, sex businesses and their lawyers continue to attempt to cite Linz's contradictory studies - methodologies described as being without precedent or authority in the scientific literature - which say sexually oriented businesses do not increase crime but to the contrary decrease it.

Since that landmark decision in 1986, numerous governments across the nation have established laws to zone, license and regulate sexually oriented businesses. Often, though, local jurisdictions have been reluctant to protect themselves because they lacked the expertise and/or the funds to do so.

Statewide Regulations in Ohio

To remedy that situation, for over five years Citizens for Community Values (CCV) has worked with Ohio state legislators in an effort to enact a state law that would give state protection and assistance to townships and municipalities in the development of ordinances to zone, license and regulate this industry, and that also would establish minimal regulations on a statewide, uniform basis, similar to the way other industries or criminal issues may be treated in the Ohio Revised Code.

Until this past year, CCV’s efforts to work with the Ohio legislature to secure final passage of such a law had been unsuccessful or limited, but nonetheless incomplete.

In 2006, CCV drafted a bill that would accomplish two statewide goals:

(1)  Insure that local communities had state assistance in developing protective ordinances to regulate sexually oriented businesses according to their specific, local needs. 

(2) Establish two common-sense statewide standards that would curb the documented crimes associated with sexually oriented businesses.  The first would limit the hours of operation to avoid those hours when the associated crimes increased (12:00 midnight to 6:00am). The second would prohibit physical contact between patrons of such businesses and employees who regularly appear nude or semi-nude, thereby assisting in the enforcement of Ohio’s laws against prostitution.

CCV’s plan was to take advantage of a provision of the Ohio constitution that allows citizens to take a proposed law directly to the General Assembly for consideration by initiative petition.
 
After securing the Attorney General’s approval of their petition form and a summary of the bill, in the fall CCV sent thousands of petitions out to friends across the state.  The Constitution stipulates that petitions for a citizen-initiated statute must be signed by Ohio voters in a number equal to three percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election.  Factoring in a percentage for signatures normally declined due to technical reasons, CCV determined that close to 200,000 signatures would be required.

On December 13, CCV delivered to the office of then Secretary of State Ken Blackwell petitions with over 220,000 signatures, which Mr. Blackwell immediately sent to the 88 county boards of election for validation. 

Within days, the county boards reported back to the Secretary of State that the petitions contained sufficient valid signatures. 

On January 2, 2007, the first session day of the 127th General Assembly, the Secretary of State officially transmitted the elector-initiated proposed legislation to the clerks of the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives for consideration.

During the next four months, the Ohio Statehouse became a second home to CCV’s staff.  They had one goal, which was to take precedence over all other duties:  reach all state legislators to make sure that they understood first the crimes and other deleterious effects linked to sexually oriented businesses in Ohio, and secondly the strong constitutional foundation supporting the two regulations of the proposed statute.

Because CDA came to the Legislature through the initiative petition process, CCV was recognized as the bill’s unofficial sponsor, and in that capacity was responsible for providing sponsor testimony before the committees to which CDA was assigned in both houses, and for coordinating proponent testimony.  Proponents addressing the two committees included attorney Scott Bergthold, county and municipal law enforcement officers, leaders of other pro-family organizations, and ordinary citizens whose communities had been adversely affected by sex businesses.

While under consideration in the House of Representatives, CDA underwent two changes.
 
• A six-foot buffer zone between nude or semi-nude employees and patrons was reduced to a simple “no-physical-contact” rule.
• An exception was added that would allow strip clubs possessing liquor licenses to continue offering semi-nude (but not nude) entertainment until the closing time stipulated by their license. Otherwise, limits on hours of operation remained basically the same.  All other sexually oriented businesses would be required to close between midnight and 6:00AM.

In addition, a section was added whereby the state not only would provide townships and municipalities assistance in writing their own regulations on sexually oriented businesses, but also would indemnify them in the event those regulations were challenged in court.

These changes were made in part because members of the House committee that considered CDA wanted to send Governor Strickland a bill that could not be considered “constitutionally suspect” in any respect  – a bill every provision of which already had been upheld by Federal courts.

According to the constitutional guidelines for a bill presented to the legislature by initiative petition, if the Legislature had not passed CDA into law, or amended the proposed law in a manner unacceptable to the petitioners, CCV was prepared to organize a second petition campaign in order to take the proposed legislation directly to Ohio voters in November’s General Election.

That supplementary petition process was not necessary.

By the end of May 2007, both the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives had passed Sub. S.B16, the Community Defense Act, by a 75 percent margin. (See who voted for and against the bill).

On May 24, 2007, Sub.S.B.16 was sent to Governor Strickland’s office.

On June 4, Sub.S.B.16, the Community Defense Act, became the law in Ohio and, in accordance with constitutional guidelines, was scheduled to become effective 90 days later, on September 4.

Immediately after Gov. Ted Strickland allowed the bill to become law, the trade association of Ohio sex business owners – the Buckeye Association of Club Executives (BACE) – initiated a referendum petition campaign.

To prevent the law from becoming effective and force it onto the ballot, Ohio’s constitution requires that opponents collect signatures of registered voters in a quantity equal to six percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election, in this case, 241,366.  In addition, the signatures must represent at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.

In a signature gathering drive marked by intentionally fraudulent messages, BACE’s paid circulators were able to gather signatures in excess of the required minimum prior to the September 3 deadline.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Bruner thus “stayed” the law, and sent those petitions to the respective county boards of election to validate that the signatures match voter registration records.  The boards of election were required to complete the validation process and report back to the Secretary of State by September 20.

Preliminary reports from the county boards indicate that the signatures will be far below the number required, and that the fraud committed by petition circulators was widespread.

However, if the signatures collected are indeed insufficient, the constitution provides an additional 10 days for petitioners to collect supplemental signatures to make up the deficit.  

If the final count is then sufficient, the law will appear on the November 6, 2007 General Election ballot as Issue 1. 

The ballot language already has been written. Absentee ballots, which will begin to be mailed out on October 2, will include Issue 1.