Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a challenge to the sufficiency of signatures on a statewide casino-initiative petition and denied related requests for mandamus and an R.C. 2503.40 writ. The court held that the requested investigation and invalidation of additional part-petitions were not available under Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution after the secretary of state certified the petition. The relators also failed to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether relators could obtain relief under Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution requiring the secretary of state and boards of elections to investigate alleged circulator violations and invalidate additional part-petitions after the constitutional sufficiency deadline.
- Whether relators established the elements required for a writ of mandamus compelling investigation and invalidation of part-petitions.
- Whether the court should issue a peremptory other writ under R.C. 2503.40 as a substitute for mandamus.
- Whether oral argument was necessary.
Holdings
- A challenge under Section 1g, Article II could not provide the requested order requiring further investigation and invalidation of part-petitions after the secretary of state's constitutional deadline for determining signature sufficiency had expired.
- Relators were not entitled to a writ of mandamus because they failed to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief and a corresponding clear legal duty on the respondents.
- The court would not issue a peremptory other writ under R.C. 2503.40 as a substitute for an extraordinary writ.
- Oral argument was unnecessary because the parties' briefs were sufficient to resolve the dispositive legal issues.
Key quotations
“Because relators seek relief that is not available in a Section 1g, Article II challenge and have not established their entitlement to relief in mandamus or to an R.C. 2503.40 writ, we deny the requested relief.” (¶ 1)
“They have no additional duty or authority to further investigate and invalidate additional part-petitions and signatures following the expiration of the constitutional deadline.” (¶ 15)
“To be entitled to the writ, relators must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the secretary of state and the Muskingum County Board of Elections to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” (¶ 17)
Factual background
The Ohio Jobs & Growth Committee filed an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing casinos in four Ohio cities. Scioto Downs and its general manager challenged part-petitions based on alleged circulator defects, including nonresidential or duplicate addresses, multiple addresses, felony convictions, and possible identity misrepresentation. The secretary of state certified the petition as having sufficient signatures and ordered a separate investigation into alleged election-law violations.
Procedural history
Relators challenged the validity of part-petitions supporting a proposed casino constitutional amendment and requested that the secretary of state and a county board of elections investigate alleged circulator violations and invalidate the challenged petitions. The secretary of state certified that the initiative had sufficient signatures and separately ordered an investigation into alleged election-law violations. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the constitutional challenge, mandamus relief, the requested other writ, and oral argument.