The vote was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

An amendment now can't reach voters before 2010. That would happen only with a successful new petition drive and the backing of 50 lawmakers in two consecutive sittings of the 200-seat Legislature - including the one that just rejected the ballot measure.

Such a scenario appeared increasingly unlikely, but opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on.

The three banks involved are Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Credit Suisse First Boston.

In April, the university filed a petition along with the other plaintiffs asking that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the appeal. On Monday, the university filed a brief asking that the court hear the appeal at the same time as another case that also grappled with the degree of responsibility for secondary actors like the banks.

Enron Corporation was found to have committed investor fraud in 2001 and then collapsed.

The university alleges that banks knew of the fraud and should now be held responsible for their role in Enron’s investor fraud.

The total alleged loss for all plaintiffs involved is estimated at $40 billion, Davis said.

According to Davis, the university lost approximately $145 million in investments as a result of the fraud and collapse.

The 50,000 plaintiffs include both individual and institutional investors, although Davis said the university was one of the pension funds with substantial losses.

The case had been heard in March by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; that court ruled in favor of the banks in a 2-1 vote.

The idea of holding banks responsible for their part in the Enron scandal would bring into question the concept of scheme liability.

Scheme liability envisions fraudulent practices involving additional parties who actively and knowingly participate in the fraud, Davis said.

“We’re alleging that banks knew what they were doing and did what they did to perpetuate the fraud,” Davis said. “Scheme liability means banks were part of the scheme as opposed to just being innocent bystanders.”

While three banks currently remain as defendents, Davis said a number of other banks that had been involved in the case have settled for a total of approximately $7 billion out of court.

If the Supreme Court decides in the university’s favor, Davis said the remaining three banks could have the option to settle out of court as well.

Davis said he did not know when the Supreme Court is expected to respond or what the next steps will be for the case, adding that the university hopes the plaintiffs will get the chance to go to trial.

"This is sickening," Prosecutor Bill Mason said Wednesday. "The charitable trust established by Father O'Dea continues his life's work of giving to others even after his death. This attorney's theft of trust assets is, in effect, stealing from the poor and needy. He is without conscience."

Mason said Economic Crimes Unit prosecutors already have negotiated a plea deal with Parrish and his lawyer that would require him to repay $250,000 to the trust and to plead guilty to an aggravated theft charge.

Parrish already has repaid $83,000, and filed a request with the Ohio Supreme Court to assume inactive status as a lawyer, said his attorney, James Sammon.

"We have worked diligently to resolve the estate in probate court," Sammon said. "And he is in the process of winding down his law practice."

When he died, O'Dea was 92 and under the care of the Little Sisters of the Poor at their home in Warrensville Heights. He had served as pastor of St. Mary's Church in Hudson and St. Peter's Church in Lorain.

One of the trustees of O'Dea's charitable trust account noticed suspicious bank activity, and reported it to the Cleveland Bar Association. Bar officials contacted the prosecutor's office.

With another challenge to the law pending in federal court, it was unclear if the state could begin requiring voters to show identification at the polls.

For months, lawyers have been battling over the law, one of several passed recently across the country.

Opponents claim the photo ID law will disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly who don't have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.

The law's mostly Republican supporters say it is needed to prevent voter fraud and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. No examples of in-person voter fraud have been presented, though the proposal's backers often mention the threat of noncitizens casting illegal ballots.

Monday's ruling, written by Justice Harold Melton, said that plaintiff Rosalind Lake was not harmed by the voter ID law and lacked standing to challenge it since she was exempt as a first-time voter.

The Secretary of State's office, which enforces voting law, did not immediately comment. But the law's sponsor, state Sen. Cecil Staton, said the court's opinion reinforced the Legislature's intent when it passed the law last year.

"It gives credence to our position all along that the argument that there are many, many people who are harmed by this law is just not correct," said Staton, a Macon Republican. "They didn't even have a plaintiff who's been harmed."

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, vowed to "continue to fight this battle in federal court."

At the federal level, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down an earlier version of the law in 2005, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Legislature addressed his complaints in a subsequent version, but he blocked the law again in September, saying the bill isn't in the public's interest. An appeal is pending.

Other states have faced similar legal battles over requiring voters to have photo IDs.

In Arizona, the law survived court challenges, and voters have had to show a photo ID to vote since 2006. In Missouri, the state Supreme Court in October struck down a law that required voters there to show a photo identification.

A federal appeals court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in January, saying it has the potential to do more good than harm. A month later, a New Mexico federal judge struck down the city of Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance.

The president's message was that it's important to reduce "unnecessary lawsuits" and that federal securities regulators are in the best position to sue, said Al Hubbard, Bush's chief economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council.

Hubbard said deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley conveyed Bush's perspective to Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the government's views before the Supreme Court.

Hubbard said the president communicated his policy views, not specifically what he thought the solicitor general should do.

Bush's role in the case underscores its significance. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could determine whether investors can pursue lawsuits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and scandal-ridden companies.

The deadline for siding with investors in the case ended at midnight Monday, and the solicitor general did not file a brief.

The administration will decide in the next 30 days whether to side with the defendant companies or not to participate in the case at all.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to ask the solicitor general to support shareholders.

Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's associate general counsel, criticized Bush's action.

"The president decided that he thinks it's more important to protect his friends than it is to enforce the law," Silvers said.

The issue is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and accountants who are thought to have aided in fraud committed by their corporate clients.

The high court's ruling in the case could determine whether the Enron plaintiffs' separate $40 billion lawsuit against the investment banks — stalled by a federal appeals court ruling in March — can proceed.

Thirty state attorneys general sided with investors and referred to the Enron scandal 55 times in a 43-page court filing.

A small Kane County newspaper and its former columnist have accused the biggest names in the state judiciary of violating Illinois citizens' basic constitutional rights.

In the process, the state court system returns to uncharted waters.

The Shaw Suburban Media Group, which runs the Kane County Chronicle, is suing seven Illinois Supreme Court justices, three Illinois appellate court justices and the Cook County circuit court judge who presided over a defamation trial against the newspaper.

It is the latest fallout from the lawsuit Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas won against the paper and its former columnist, St. Charles resident Bill Page.

"They filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court and they should be sanctioned for that," said Chicago attorney Joseph Power, who represents Thomas. "It is absurd."

Thomas, of Wheaton, filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper and Page for three columns Page wrote in 2003. The columns accused Thomas of abusing his power to gain support for a friend running for a Kane County judgeship. Page claimed Thomas would agree to reduced punishment for then-Kane County State's Attorney Meg Gorecki - who was facing ethics violations - in exchange for support of his candidate.

Last Nov. 15 a Kane County jury sided with Thomas after a nearly three-week trial.

The federal lawsuit filed Tuesday seeks to have the libel verdict and $4 million judgment, reduced by the trial judge from the $7 million the jury granted, against the paper thrown out. The lawsuit also asks for a ban to be instituted on filing a new lawsuit against the paper while Thomas and the justices remain employed in the state court system.

The lawsuit also asks for attorney fees, an unspecified amount of damages and a stay on the 9 percent daily interest accruing on the judgment while the newspaper appeals.

Essentially, the lawsuit contends the newspaper can not receive a fair appeal of the case because the appellate court judges are under the control of Thomas. Also, unlike other cases, the newspaper cannot appeal for a hearing before the Illinois Supreme Court because five of the current seven justices were witnesses in the case and must recuse themselves, leaving less than the quorum required by law to hear a case.

"In a broader sense, the complaint is precedent-setting because this suit is the first in the nation to challenge the fairness of a personal lawsuit brought by a judge controlling a state court system," wrote Washington, D.C.-based attorney Bruce Sanford. He frequently represents media interests and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the newspaper and Page.

Sanford said the judgment cannot be enforced because it violates the civil rights of the newspaper.

Power said the newspaper had an opportunity to file a request to have Cook County Judge Donald O'Brien, a former defense attorney, removed as the trial judge in the case and did not. It was originally at the newspaper's behest the Supreme Court justices recused themselves.

"You can't have it both ways," Power said.

Sanford contends neither the federal courts nor a state-appointed panel of judges can fix the constitutional problems by hearing the case. The state lacks a procedure for this type of situation, because a similar case has never arisen.

"We have filed this lawsuit with great reluctance as we hoped the state court system would be able to protect our rights. That plainly is not the case," said Thomas Shaw, president of Shaw Suburban Media Group.

The lawsuit questions Thomas' ethical right to file the lawsuit in the first place because justices are expected to put the avoidance of the appearance of judicial impropriety above their personal gain.

Power said Thomas has as much a right to protect his reputation and a trial by jury as anyone else.

Once the defamation case hit the court, the lawsuit contends the newspaper and Page's due process, equal protection and First Amendment rights were violated by allowing justices to refrain from commenting on their deliberations in the Gorecki case because of judicial privilege and having Illinois judges hear a case with their boss, Thomas, as the plaintiff.

The trial judge and subsequent appellate court judges were all selected by the Supreme Court, five of whom are involved in the case, Sanford contended in a news release.

"One cannot doubt the obvious unfairness inherent in asking the inferior judicial officers appointed to this appeal to sit in judgment over a $4 million award to their Chief Justice and to evaluate the testimony of both the Chief Justice and his fellow Justices - their judicial bosses ...," Sanford wrote.

"I have never seen anything like it before. A Chief Justice enlists his colleagues on the bench as his witnesses to help him win a huge trial verdict and then expects the newspaper to be satisfied with its right to appeal within the court system he controls."