State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner

123 Ohio St. 3d 322, 2009-Ohio-4900 (Ohio 2009) · Supreme Court of Ohio · September 21, 2009 · No. 2009-1310

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the video-lottery-terminal provisions of 2009 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1 were not appropriations for current state expenses, tax levies, or emergency laws exempt from referendum. The provisions therefore remained subject to Ohio's constitutional right of referendum. The court granted a writ of mandamus directing the secretary of state to treat the provisions as subject to referendum.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
O'Donnell, J.; Moyer, C.J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Connor, J.; Lanzinger, J.; Cupp, J.; Pfeifer, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
September 21, 2009
Docket number
2009-1310
Procedural posture
Original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio seeking to compel the secretary of state to accept and process a referendum-petition summary concerning video-lottery-terminal provisions in the state biennial budget bill.
Standard of review
To obtain mandamus, relators must establish a clear legal right to relief, a corresponding clear legal duty, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Constitutional referendum exceptions are strictly but reasonably construed, and initiative and referendum powers are liberally construed to protect the reserved rights.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio; includes a controlling syllabus holding.
Parties
LetOhioVote.org, Thomas E. Brinkman Jr., David Hansen, Gene Pierce v. Jennifer Brunner, Secretary of State, Directors of the Office of Budget and Management and the Ohio Lottery Commission
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

election lawgamblingstatutory interpretationremediesconstitutional law

Practice areas

Election lawConstitutional lawAdministrative lawGambling lawRemedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio had original jurisdiction over relators' mandamus action.
  2. Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy because relators lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  3. Whether the VLT provisions of 2009 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1 were appropriations for current expenses of state government or otherwise fell within an exception to Ohio's constitutional right of referendum.
  4. Whether the VLT provisions, as permanent changes to Ohio law that generate revenue for a separate appropriation, were subject to referendum.
  5. Whether the challenged VLT provisions should be stayed for 90 days to provide a meaningful opportunity to circulate a referendum petition.

Holdings

  1. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the secretary of state to treat the VLT provisions as subject to referendum because relators established a clear legal right, a corresponding clear legal duty, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  2. The VLT provisions were not appropriations for the current expenses of state government or state institutions and did not fall within the constitutional exceptions for tax levies, appropriations, or emergency laws.
  3. Legislation that generates revenue for a separate appropriation is not exempt from referendum merely because it is related to or inextricably tied to that appropriation.
  4. The VLT provisions were permanent changes to Ohio law, not temporary measures necessary to implement an appropriation, and therefore were subject to referendum.
  5. The court granted the writ, ordered the secretary of state to accept the referendum-petition summary and perform her statutory and constitutional duties, and stayed the VLT provisions for 90 days.

Key quotations

“After careful review of this important question, we conclude that our jurisdiction has been properly invoked, that mandamus is an appropriate remedy, and that the VLT provisions of H.B. 1 are subject to referendum.” (123 Ohio St. 3d 323)
“The VLT provisions of H.B. 1 do not appropriate anything.” (123 Ohio St. 3d 330)
“The VLT provisions at issue here constitute permanent changes that will be effective well after the biennium ends and are thus subject to referendum.” (123 Ohio St. 3d 334)
“While the Ohio Constitution expressly provides that appropriations for the current expenses of the state government are not subject to referendum, permanent changes to state law relating to such appropriations are subject to referendum.” (123 Ohio St. 3d 336)

Factual background

The Ohio General Assembly enacted 2009 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, the 2010-2011 biennial budget, including provisions authorizing the Ohio Lottery Commission to operate video-lottery-terminal games at Ohio horse-racing tracks. The bill also increased an education appropriation by approximately $851.5 million based on expected VLT revenues and declared the VLT provisions exempt from referendum. After the governor signed the bill, relators attempted to file referendum materials, but the secretary of state and attorney general refused to accept them.

Procedural history

Relators filed an original action after the secretary of state and attorney general declined to accept referendum filings concerning the video-lottery-terminal provisions of 2009 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an accelerated briefing schedule, allowed the directors of the Office of Budget and Management and the Ohio Lottery Commission to intervene, and granted the writ. The court directed the secretary of state to accept the referendum-petition summary and stayed the challenged provisions for 90 days to permit circulation of a referendum petition.

Remand instructions

The secretary of state was directed to accept relators' referendum-petition summary and discharge her duties under Article II of the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.01. The amendments to Ohio Rev. Code § 3770.03 and enactment of § 3770.21 were stayed for 90 days.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court