Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

These consolidated appeals stemmed from a general election on Issue 6 in Lake Township, Stark County, that approved expansion of the a police district to include all of Lake Township's unincorporated territory and levied a property tax for that purpose. The issue was approved by the voters. Subsequently, many of those who had voted in the election filed a petition contesting the election approving Issue 6 due to an error in ballot language and requesting that the election be set aside. The common pleas court entered a judgment granting the contest and setting aside the election result approving Issue 6, determining that the error in ballot language constituted an election irregularity and that the election irregularity made the election result on Issue 6 uncertain. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this case presented the extreme circumstances of a misstatement in ballot wording that understated a proposed tax levy by ten times less than the true amount to be collected, which misled the voters and affected the integrity of the election on Issue 6; and (2) based on the applicable law, the common pleas court did not err in granting the contest and setting aside the election. View "In re Election held on Stark County Issue Six" on Justia Law

This was an original action in which Relators, thirty-six electors living in various districts for the Ohio House of Representatives as reapportioned by the Ohio Apportionment Board on September 30, 2011, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Respondents, the four republic members of the five-member Ohio Apportionment Board. Relators sought (1) a declaration that the apportionment plan adopted by the Board was invalid because the Board failed to comply with Ohio Const. art. XI, which governs the decennial apportionment of districts in the General Assembly and the Open Meetings Law, Ohio Rev. Code 121.22; and (2) a prohibitory injunction preventing those Board members from calling, holding, supervising, administering, or certifying any elections under their apportionment plan. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed Relators' open-meetings claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) denied Relators' Article XI claims based on laches insofar as they attempted to challenge the use of the apportionment plan for the 2012 election cycle; and (3) held that Relators' remaining Article XI claims were not barred by laches. The Court stated that it would issue a separate order for further briefing and oral argument on those claims. View "Wilson v. Kasich" on Justia Law

Dennis Varnau, an independent candidate for sheriff of Brown County, filed a protest against Dwayne Wenninger's candidacy for sheriff in the 2008 elections. The board of elections denied the protest because it was not filed by a member of the appropriate party. Following the election victory by Wenninger, Varnau filed a complaint for a writ of quo warranto to oust Wenninger from the office and to place Varnau in that office. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Varnau did not establish that Wenninger lacked the qualifications under Ohio Rev. Code 311.01(B) to hold the office of sheriff for his third four-year term, and the court of appeals properly denied the writ; and (2) the court of appeals did not err by denying Wenninger's request for attorney fees when he prevailed on Varnau's quo warranto claim. View "State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger" on Justia Law

After an at-large village council member resigned from his office, the village law director swore Respondent Scott Richardson into the office of member of village council to fill the vacancy. One day later, the mayor appointed Relator, Terry Johnson, to the office. Johnson then filed this action for a writ of quo warranto to oust Richardson from the office and to declare Johnson entitled to possession of that office. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the pertinent facts were uncontroverted and established Johnson's entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief where (1) Richardson did not receive enough votes to fill the vacancy on the village council under the plain language of the village charter; and (2) Johnson established that he was entitled to the office under the charter. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Waters filed a petition to be a candidate for the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee for the 15th Precinct of Lebanon at the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election. Respondent Warren County Board of Elections voted to not certify Waters's candidacy. Waters then filed an expedited-election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board and its members to certify his candidacy. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Waters was barred from candidacy in the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election because he voted in a primary election as a member of a different political party within the preceding two calendar years. View "State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth" on Justia Law

Relators, Ohioans for Fair Districts and its members, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, Secretary of State Jon Husted, to treat Sections 1 and 2 of H.B. 319, which established new congressional districts for the state based on the 2010 decennial census, as subject to referendum, to accept the submission of Relators' referendum-petition summary, and to discharge the duties of Husted's office as provided by Ohio Const. art. II and Ohio Rev. Code 3519.01. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) the writ was consistent with precedent and the plain language of Ohio Const. art. II, and (2) unless a valid referendum petition was timely filed with the secretary of state, H.B. 319 would become effective ninety days from the date the bill was filed by the governor in the office of the secretary of state. View "State ex rel. Ohioans for Fair Dists. v. Husted" on Justia Law

Mike Gilb, who had been appointed to fulfill a second unexpired term on the Mason City Council, took out candidate petitions for the upcoming general election for city council. Relators, registered voters and city residents, sent Respondents, the county board of elections, a letter claiming that Gilb was ineligible pursuant to the term-limit provisions of the city charter. The board considered the letter at its regular meeting, determining that there was no action for it to take at the time. Subsequently, Relators filed an expedited election action, requesting a writ of prohibition to prevent Respondents from certifying Gilb as a candidate and a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents to sustain their protest. The Supreme Court (1) denied Relators' prohibition claim because they failed to establish their entitlement to the requested relief as (a) Respondents had not exercised or were not about to exercise quasi-judicial power, and (b) Relators did not establish that they lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to challenge Gilb's candidacy; and (2) dismissed Relators' mandamus claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "State ex rel. Miller v. Warren County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

On May 23, 2011, John Coble filed with the board of elections a nominating petition to run for municipal court judge at the November 8, 2011 election. On June 1, 2011, Coble withdrew his candidacy. On June 13, 2011, Coble filed a new nominating petition for the same office and the same election. On July 29, 2011, the board rejected Coble's petition and refused to certify him as a candidate for municipal court judge based on a directive issued on July 22, 2011 by the secretary of state declaring that a person who withdraws his candidacy for office cannot file a new declaration and petition for the same office at the same election. Coble subsequently filed an expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to certify him and place his name on the November 8, 2011 election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by rejecting Coble's candidacy for municipal court judge due to an applicable exception in Coble's case. View "State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Liberty Township board of trustees approved a zoning amendment that rezoned three parcels of township land. Subsequently, a group of petitioners filed a referendum petition seeking to submit the board's action approving the rezoning of the property to the electors of the township. Relators, the owner of the property at issue, the developer of the property, and the developer company's president, submitted a protest to the county board of elections against the referendum petition. The board certified the referendum petition and placed the rezoning issue on the general-election ballot and rejected Relators' protest grounds. Relators then filed this action for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus to compel the board to sustain their protest. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, holding that the board of elections abused its discretion by denying Relators' protest, certifying the referendum petition, and submitting the zoning amendment to the electorate because the petitioners did not timely file their referendum petition pursuant to statute. View "State ex rel. Edwards Land Co., Ltd. v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The criminal prosecution of the Appellees in this case arose from conduct that allegedly occurred during the election recount of the November, 2004 presidential election. Appellee Jacqueline Maiden was the coordinator for the elections board, and Appellees Kathleen Dreamer and Rosie Grier were the manager and assistant manager, respectively, of the board's Ballot Department. Maiden was in charge of preparing the board's staff for the recount, and Dreamer and Grier were involved in organizing and conducting the recount. In December, 2004, the board met and certified the recount results. During that meeting, information was disclosed that suggested that personnel might not have conducted the recount in accordance with Ohio law. The board did not launch an investigation and did not refer the matter to the prosecutor. In August, 2005, a grand jury was convened, and indicted Dreamer and Grier on election-law violations regarding the recount. The elections board agreed that it would pay the legal fees and expenses of Dreamer, Maiden and Grier in all matters related to their criminal cases if they were not convicted of criminal conduct. In January, 2007, a jury tried Dreamer, Maiden and Grier. Grier was found not guilty on all charges, and the charges against Dreamer and Maiden were eventually dismissed. In 2009, Appellees filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the prosecutor and commissioners to appoint an independent counsel and to order the commissioners to pay for their legal expenses. The appellate court granted Appellees' the writ, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court found that the writ was available to "county officers" under the applicable state law under which Appellees sought relief. Appellees were "employees" and not "officers." Accordingly, the Court held that the appellate court erred by granting Appellees the writ of mandamus.