State ex rel. Halstead v. Jackson

2022-Ohio-3205 (Ohio 2022) · Supreme Court of Ohio · September 13, 2022 · No. 2022-1008

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied relators’ request for a writ of mandamus seeking to place a Canal Winchester zoning ordinance on the November 2022 ballot for referendum. The court held that the ordinance was properly enacted as emergency legislation under Ohio Revised Code 731.30 and therefore was not subject to referendum. The court also denied relators’ request for attorney fees and declined to apply laches because respondents failed to show prejudice caused by relators’ delay.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, C.J.; Patrick F. Fischer, J.; Pat DeWine, J.; Michael P. Donnelly, J.; Melody J. Stewart, J.; Jennifer Brunner, J.; Joseph T. Kennedy, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
September 13, 2022
Docket number
2022-1008
Procedural posture
Original expedited mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio seeking to compel a municipal finance director to transmit a referendum petition concerning a zoning ordinance to the county board of elections.
Standard of review
Mandamus requires clear and convincing evidence of a clear legal right to relief, a clear legal duty to provide the relief, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Review of a municipal council's determination that an ordinance is an emergency is limited; the court may not assess whether the stated reason is substantively valid, but may determine whether the reason is purely conclusory, tautological, or illusory.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Angela M. Halstead, Randy S. Stemen, Bethany R. Ferguson, Ann D. Bennett, Kathleen M. Vasko v. Amanda Jackson, Finance Director, City of Canal Winchester, Canal Winchester City Council
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

election lawelection administrationzoningordinancesmunicipal law

Practice areas

election lawmunicipal lawadministrative and constitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether relators' mandamus claim was barred by laches.
  2. Whether Canal Winchester's charter subjected the emergency zoning ordinance to referendum despite Ohio Revised Code 731.30.
  3. Whether the May ordinance satisfied Ohio Revised Code 731.30's requirements for emergency legislation and was therefore exempt from referendum.

Holdings

  1. Laches did not bar relief because, although relators unreasonably delayed filing suit after being told that the petition would not be transmitted, the city and intervenor failed to show that they were materially prejudiced by that delay.
  2. Under Canal Winchester's charter, a zoning ordinance validly enacted as emergency legislation is not subject to referendum because the charter incorporates the state-law referendum process, and Ohio Revised Code 731.30 exempts emergency ordinances from that process.
  3. The May ordinance was properly enacted as emergency legislation and was not subject to referendum.

Key quotations

We hold, therefore, that the May ordinance was properly enacted as emergency legislation and is not subject to referendum. (¶ 32)

Factual background

Canal Winchester enacted a May 2022 ordinance repealing an earlier zoning ordinance and rezoning approximately 70 acres for a planned industrial district. The ordinance was declared emergency legislation based on stated municipal interests, including preserving and increasing employment and income-tax revenues, protecting existing utility infrastructure investments, and preserving the city's influence over infrastructure improvements. Relators submitted a referendum petition, but the city finance director refused to transmit it to the board of elections because emergency legislation is not subject to referendum.

Procedural history

Relators submitted referendum petitions concerning a May 2022 emergency zoning ordinance. The finance director refused to transmit the petition to the Franklin County Board of Elections because the ordinance was enacted as emergency legislation. Relators filed an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio, and NorthPoint Development was permitted to intervene. The court denied the writ and denied attorney fees.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…