Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Meigs County Homes Rule Committee and its members (collectively, the committee) sought to place a proposed charter for Meigs County on the November 2016 ballot. The committee submitted the petition to the Meigs County Board of Elections (the board), which certified the petition. The Meigs County Board of Commissioners and its members (collectively, the commissioners) refused to certify the initiative for placement on the ballot, concluding that the board failed to act within the time frame required by Ohio Rev. Code 307.94. The committee sought of a writ of mandamus compelling placement of the proposed charter on the ballot. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that the board’s initial letter to the commissioners certifying the petition satisfied the requirements of section 307.94. View "State ex rel. Meigs County Home Rule Comm. v. Meigs County Bd. of Comm’rs" on Justia Law

In 2013, Shawn Valentine was elected trustee of Spencer Township in Lucas County. In 2015, Valentine, who serves in the Ohio Army National Guard, told the two other trustees of his military deployment but that he did not intend to resign his position as trustee. The two trustees subsequently voted to declare Valentine’s office vacant and then appointed one of the trustees, D. Hilarion Smith, to take Valentine’s trustee position. Relator, the Lucas County prosecuting attorney, sought a peremptory writ of quo warranto seeking to remove Smith from the office of township trustee and a declaration that Valentine was the rightful holder of that position. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) under the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 503.241, Smith usurped the title and authority of Valentine’s office of township trustee; and (2) the board of township trustees violated the Open Meetings Act when it unlawfully appointed Smith to Valentine’s trustee position. View "State ex rel. Bates v. Smith" on Justia Law

On December 22, 2015, Respondents submitted part-petitions in support of an initiative to enact the "Ohio Drug Price Relief Act." On February 29, 2016, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association and others commenced this original protest action identifying three alleged defects in the part-petitions that they claimed should cause the part-petitions to be discounted in their entirety. The Supreme Court sustained the challenge in part, holding that 10,303 signatures, including the signatures on all part-petitions circulated by two petition circulators in particular, were erroneously validated because either the circulators submitted false information in their circulator statements or the part-petitions had overcounts. View "Ohio Manufacturers' Ass’n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act" on Justia Law

Under the prior version of R.C. 3519.01(A), if the attorney general certified the summary of a proposal to change the law or amend the constitution as fair and truthful, that proposal would be filed with the secretary of state and supporters could begin circulating petitions. The section now provides that a petition is transferred to the Ballot Board, not to the secretary of state, for review after certification, and that “[o]nly one proposal of law or constitutional amendment to be proposed by initiative petition shall be contained in an initiative petition to enable the voters to vote on that proposal separately.” If the Board determines that the petition contains more than one proposed law or constitutional amendment, it must divide the petition into individual petitions and certify its approval to the attorney general; supporters must submit separate summaries for approval. The Board divided Ethics First’s submission into three separate proposed amendments. Ethics First brought a mandamus petition. After holding that it had jurisdiction, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The modest imposition posed by requiring new summaries does not unduly restrict the right of initiative, The “separate petitions” requirement is not content-based. It applies to all petitions. View "Ethics First-You Decide Ohio Political Action Comm.. v. DeWine" on Justia Law

Relators, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association and others, filed this original petition challenging the petition signatures submitted in support of the Ohio Drug Price Relief Act (Act). The committee responsible for the Act petition (committee) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that a challenge to the specific part-petitions at issue did not fall within the scope of the Court’s original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the committee’s jurisdictional arguments and denied the committee’s alternative arguments for partial judgment on the pleadings, holding (1) the Court has original jurisdiction over this petition challenge pursuant to Ohio Const. art. II, 1g; and (2) the committee’s alternative arguments were unavailing. View "Ohio Manufacturers' Ass’n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act" on Justia Law

On December 1, 2015, Gary Lee filed a petition and declaration of candidacy for sheriff at the Hamilton County Board of Elections. On January 4, 2016, David Duclos filed a written protest with the Board of Elections, alleging that Lee’s application was incomplete because it did not include the result sheet of an FBI background check. During the course of a protest hearing held by the Board, the report from the FBI was entered into evidence. The Board then denied the protest. On January 14, 2016, Duclos filed a mandamus complaint but, five days later, sought to dismiss that action and filed a new complaint for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of prohibition on the grounds of laches, concluding that Duclos unreasonably delayed bringing this action to the prejudice of Respondents. View "State ex rel. Duclos v. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. sought extraordinary relief to prevent a tax levy for Sugarcreek Township from appearing on the March 15, 2016 election ballot because it was allegedly not in compliance with state laws. The Supreme Court (1) granted in part the requested writ of mandamus, holding that the Board of Election was under a clear legal duty to remove the levy from the ballot because it was untimely; but (2) declined to issue a writ of prohibition because the Board was not engaged in a quasi-judicial function when it prepared the ballot. View "State ex rel. Cornerstone Developers, Ltd. v. Greene County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

A petition was submitted to to the clerk of the Hilliard City Council to amend the city charter. The City Council voted against an ordinance to place the proposed charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Hilliard City Council to approve an ordinance placing a proposed city-charter amendment on the March 15, 2016 ballot. Relators subsequently commenced this original action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the city council’s objections to the petition were unavailing, and therefore, the city council was compelled to approve the necessary ordinance to place the initiative petition on the March 15, 2016 ballot. View "State ex rel. Carrier v. Hilliard City Council" on Justia Law

Mary Siegel, a registered elector, filed a challenge to the voter registration of Randy Simes. The Board of Elections voted to reject the challenge. Barbara Holwadel and Steven Johnson (together, Holwadel) subsequently filed an action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus overturning the board’s decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that Holwadel failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Board had a clear legal duty to strike Simes from the voter rolls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly refused to dismiss this case for lack of standing; and (2) the court of appeals properly refused to grant a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Elections and its members to remove Simes from the voter rolls. View "State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relator, Richard Burroughs, submitted a nominating petition containing twenty-four valid signatures to run as an independent candidate for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the November 3, 2015 election. The Summit County Board of Elections rejected four petition signatures because they did not match the signatures on the electors’ voter-registration forms. Relator sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to certify him for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the general election. On the authority of State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections, also decided today, the Supreme Court granted a writ, concluding that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the four petition signatures and in denying Relator a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law