The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 5-2 Wednesday that the state’s restrictions on how cities use red-light cameras are unconstitutional.

Despite the decision, the city of Columbus has no plans to pursue red light cameras, Cathy Collins, assistant director of public safety, said. The decision would have to come from City Council to fund the cameras.

A former lobbyist in Columbus City Hall, John Raphael, was moved to a halfway house earlier this month after serving about a year in prison for extorting campaign contributions to city officials from Redflex, the city's red-light-camera vendor.

And even if Columbus or other Ohio cities have ideas about restarting their traffic camera operations, some lawmakers are already looking to make Wednesday's court ruling a short-lived win.

“I think the cities will find they’ve won themselves a Pyyrhic victory," said Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, a member of House leadership who sponsored the law as a senator. "That is because we have other tools in the toolkit that we plan to deploy when we get back in September.”

The law, Senate Bill 342, required, among other things, that cities, townships and counties utilizing red-light cameras must have an officer present at each camera — a provision that made it too costly for most local entities to use the cameras.

Join the conversation at Facebook.com/dispatchpolitics and connect with us on Twitter @OhioPoliticsNow

The case is based on a challenge by the city of Dayton, though other cities, including Columbus, Akron, Dayton and Toledo, also had challenged the law with similar lawsuits. Before dismantling the program, Columbus had 44 cameras positioned at 38 intersections.

For its part, Dayton has no plans to "immediately" reemploy traffic cameras, according to the city's law director Barbara Doseck. She said the city will mull their options to do what's best for the community.

"What will be interesting to see will be the legislator's response to this," Doseck said. She expects some attempt to circumvent the ruling on a state level.

Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley said in a statement: "Citizens have been asking for red light cameras to come back so we can make our neighborhoods safer and reduce accidents. We are reviewing the ruling and will soon come up with a plan for the best way to move forward with our program."

Kent Scarrett, executive director of the Ohio Municipal League, said the ruling strongly shows that the legislature overstepped its boundaries into home rule. The decision, he said, enforces that municipalities have local police power and the ability to determine those activities in the best interest of the community.

The lead opinion by Justice Patrick Fischer found the law "infringes on the municipality’s legislative authority" and "limits the municipality’s legislative powers without serving an overriding state interest."

Bill supporters wrote the law as an alternative to a straight red-light camera ban that some thought was more likely to be struck down by the courts. The law was designed to make the cameras a secondary enforcement tool.

But Fischer wrote: “Requiring an officer’s presence at a traffic camera directly contradicts the purpose of a traffic camera — to conserve police resources.” He also noted that the law does not actually require the officer to witness the violation, so the camera is still the primary enforcer.

Justices Judith French and Sharon Kennedy wrote separately that the law violates the Ohio Constitution’s Home Rule Amendment because it fails to “prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.”

The ruling also overturned provisions of the law requiring cities to give drivers leeway for speeding cameras, and that cities first complete safety studies of intersections where cameras are being considered. The law said no ticket can be issued if the vehicle is going less than 6 mph over the speed limit in a school zone or park, or 10 mph in other locations.

The speeding leeway provision, Fischer said, is a de facto speed limit increase. He also questioned the purpose of the safety study because the placement of cameras is not connected to the results of the study.

Seitz stressed that the ruling applies only to home-rule cities, and the law remains in effect in counties and townships.

Dayton previously won at the trial court level, but that decision was overturned by the Second District Court of Appeals.

"The Ohio Constitution gives local communities the power to govern themselves without the heavy hand of the state needlessly interfering," said Keary McCarthy, executive director of the Ohio Mayors Alliance. "Today's ruling reaffirmed that right."

Seitz said home rule, enacted at at time when rural areas had over-sized voting power at the Statehouse, has "outlived its usefulness."

The fight over traffic cameras "ain't over by a long shot," Seitz said. When lawmakers return to session in September, he said, they will look at reducing state local government funding to any city that utilizes the cameras.

Lawmakers, Seitz said, also may require that camera citations be processed through the municipal court system, rather than the administrative "kangaroo courts" that cities have set up. “When you do that, you begin to take the profit out of policing-for-profit.”

Justices Patrick DeWine and William O’Neill dissented.

“Today’s decision has the unfortunate impact of further muddling a body of law that is already hopelessly confused,” DeWine wrote. “As in many cases in this area, the result today seems to have everything to do with the policy preferences of the majority and nothing to do with the language of the Home Rule Amendment."

jsiegel@dispatch.com

@phrontpage

akeiper@dispatch.com

@keiperjourno

Read the ruling below: