Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio denied writs of mandamus sought to compel Columbus City Council and the Franklin County Board of Elections to place a proposed Columbus City Charter amendment on the May 8, 2018 ballot. The court held that the proposal violated Columbus Charter 42-2(d)'s one-proposal rule because it addressed multiple or unrelated subject matters, and that the board of elections had no clear legal duty to place the amendment on the ballot absent a council ordinance approving it. Justice Fischer concurred in judgment only, while the Chief Justice and Justices French and DeWine concurred in part and dissented in part.
Holdings
- The action was not barred by laches because relators could not have effectively brought mandamus or declaratory judgment before the city council rejected the petition, and they filed suit seven days after that rejection.
- The proposed charter amendment violated Columbus City Charter 42-2(d) because it addressed multiple and unrelated subject matters, including council composition, council staffing, and campaign regulation.
- Columbus City Council had no clear legal duty to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot because the petition was legally insufficient under the one-proposal rule.
- The Franklin County Board of Elections had no clear legal duty to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot because Columbus City Council had not passed an ordinance approving its placement.
- Relators could amend their complaint and affidavits to cure the defective personal-knowledge language because the amendments did not delay resolution and the substantive changes were immaterial.
Questions Presented
- Whether relators' mandamus action was barred by laches.
- Whether the proposed charter amendment violated Columbus City Charter 42-2(d), which prohibits a petition from containing multiple or unrelated subject matters.
- Whether Columbus City Council had a clear legal duty to approve an ordinance placing the proposed charter amendment on the ballot.
- Whether the Franklin County Board of Elections had a clear legal duty to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot absent a city council ordinance approving its placement.
- Whether relators could amend their complaint and supporting affidavits to cure pleading and affidavit defects.
Disposition
writ_denied
Cases Cited (16)
- Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425, 2004-Ohio-3701, 811 N.E.2d 1130, ¶ 7(followed)
- State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-5334, 776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶¶ 24, 26-27(followed)
- State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 50, 2017-Ohio-8115, 85 N.E.3d 728, ¶ 11(followed)
- State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 239, 2015-Ohio-3761, 41 N.E.3d 1229, ¶ 14(followed)
- State ex rel. Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 113, 712 N.E.2d 696 (1999)(followed)
- State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (1995)(followed)
- State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted, 138 Ohio St.3d 535, 2014-Ohio-1417, 8 N.E.3d 940, ¶ 13(followed)
- State ex rel. Barren v. Brown, 51 Ohio St.2d 169, 365 N.E.2d 887 (1977)(distinguished)
- Fairview Gen. Hosp. v. Fletcher, 63 Ohio St.3d 146, 148-149, 586 N.E.2d 80 (1992)(followed)
- Morris v. Macedonia City Council, 71 Ohio St.3d 52, 55, 641 N.E.2d 1075 (1994)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…