EAST LIVERPOOL — A group of concerned residents gathered a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that could mean the end of the city’s traffic camera program, but it remains to be seen whether a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling could keep the issue off the ballot.

East Liverpool City Council passed legislation earlier this year establishing guidelines for implementing the traffic cam program with Blue Line Solutions. Enforcement of the related speeding tickets began April 17.

Almost immediately, complaints began surfacing from the public, many of which centered on the belief that the use of the cameras is unconstitutional.

In response, an initiative was prepared by resident Donald Bean to be placed on the ballot that would restrict the use of mobile speed enforcement vehicles and traffic law photo-monitoring devices, repealing ordinances passed by council. The proposed measure would, if approved by voters, also prevent the city from contracting with a vendor for installation of any such enforcement program if payment to the vendor is contingent on the number of tickets issued or fees collected.

Currently, the city receives 60 percent of all ticket revenue with Blue Line Solutions receiving 40 percent. The company pays officers’ overtime salary costs to operate the cameras.

The initiative also calls for allowing the violator of any traffic law in any civil proceeding to be entitled to Ohio rules of civil procedure and evidence.

Opponents have complained that receiving tickets in the mail rather than being handed one by an officer violates their right to face their accuser. Those who contest their tickets have the right to ask for a hearing before the city’s hearing officer.

The petitions, containing 330 signatures, were turned into city Auditor Marilyn Bosco, who was required to keep them for 10 days before filing them with the county elections board.

Board of elections director Adam Booth said 173 valid signatures were needed in order for the initiative to be placed on the ballot by the city, and the board certified that 224 of the signatures are valid.

Of those determined not valid, 16 had been lined out; 41 were not electors; three were illegible; two signers were from out of the jurisdiction; 29 had signatures that did not match; and 15 had addresses that did not match.

Booth said it is now up to the city to let the board know before the Aug. 9 filing date whether or not to place the initiative on the November ballot, based on the verified signature count.

That decision may rest on a recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court upholding cities’ use of traffic camera enforcement programs, both hand-held and officer-manned. The 5-2 ruling supported the city of Dayton’s challenge of provisions in state law which took effect in 2015.

Judges found illegal a requirement that an officer be present when cameras are being held, as well as requirements for lengthy traffic studies and public information campaigns before cameras are used and restrictions on ticketing drivers only if they exceed the posted limit by certain amounts, such as 6 mph in school zones.

This is the third time the high court has ruled in favor of the traffic cams, according to published reports.

Booth said he had no opinion on how the ruling might affect placement on the ballot, referring that question to the city’s law director, Charles Payne.

Payne said last week he has been reviewing the court ruling but was not yet in a position to make a statement.