Case Title: State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner

Citation: 2009-Ohio-3761

Docket Number: 20091294

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-3761.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SCIOTO DOWNS, INC. ET AL. v. BRUNNER,  
SECY. OF STATE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner,  
123 Ohio St.3d 24, 2009-Ohio-3761.] 
Elections — Mandamus — Challenge under Section 1g, Article II, Ohio 
Constitution — Failure to request the appropriate relief under the 
constitutional provision — Requested relief denied. 
(No. 2009-1294 ─ Submitted July 29, 2009 ─ Decided July 31, 2009.) 
CHALLENGE UNDER SECTION 1G, ARTICLE II OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION 
and IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is a purported challenge under Section 1g, Article II of the 
Ohio Constitution and an original action for a writ of mandamus seeking an order 
to compel the secretary of state and a board of elections to (1) investigate 
violations of Ohio election law by circulators of a statewide initiative petition and 
(2) invalidate certain part-petitions with these violations or issue an order to 
compel the secretary of state to command the boards of elections to perform these 
acts.  Relators also seek a peremptory “other” writ under R.C. 2503.40.  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. 
Background of Case 
{¶ 2} On June 25, 2009, the Ohio Jobs & Growth Committee filed an 
initiative petition with respondent Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.  The 
petition proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize casinos in Cincinnati, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo.  In accordance with R.C. 3519.15, the 
secretary of state transmitted the part-petitions to the county boards of elections 
for verification of the validity of the part-petitions and the signatures thereon.  She 
also sent Directive 2009-10, setting forth the secretary’s instructions on 
examining and determining sufficiency of the part-petitions and directing each 
board of elections to determine the sufficiency of the part-petitions and submit a 
copy of its certification to the secretary by July 16. 
{¶ 3} Relators, Scioto Downs, Inc., an Ohio corporation that operates a 
horse-racing track in southern Franklin County, and Stacy Cahill, the general 
manager of the track and a registered elector in Franklin County, are opposed to 
the casino initiative.  Relators inspected some of the part-petitions, which led 
them to question their validity.  More specifically, relators contested those part-
petitions circulated by certain individuals because allegedly (1) some circulators 
listed hotels, commercial properties, or other nonresidential addresses as their 
permanent residential addresses, (2) some circulators listed permanent residential 
addresses that were the same as those listed for other, unrelated circulators, (3) 
some circulators listed multiple permanent residential addresses, (4) some part-
petitions were circulated by felons, and (5) one circulator may have 
misrepresented his identity. 
{¶ 4} Through various correspondence between relators’ counsel and the 
secretary of state and the boards of elections, relators apprised election officials of 
their allegations.  Relators requested that the secretary of state and the boards of 
elections investigate the claimed circulator disqualifications and invalidate the 
defective part-petitions. 
{¶ 5} On July 17, relators filed this action, captioned as a “petition for 
writ of mandamus and original action complaint under Section 1g, Article II of 
the Ohio Constitution.”  On July 20, we issued an expedited schedule for 
responses to the complaint and for the submission of the parties’ evidence and 
January Term, 2009 
3 
briefs.  State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner, 122 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2009-
Ohio-3527, 909 N.E.2d 1287.  On that same date, the secretary of state issued 
Advisory 2009-08 to the county boards of elections, in which, pursuant to R.C. 
3501.05(N)(1), she directed an investigation into the alleged election-law 
violations in the circulation of the casino-initiative petition.  
{¶ 6} The secretary of state certified on July 21 that the casino-initiative 
petition had sufficient signatures as “found valid by the state’s boards of elections 
to qualify the issue for the November 2009 election ballot.”  She found that the 
boards of elections had reported 452,956 valid signatures, which exceeded the 
402,275 required to qualify for the ballot, and that the boards further reported that 
the petition had the valid signatures of more than the 5 percent of the requisite 
number of electors in 73 Ohio counties, which exceeded the 44-county 
requirement.  Sections 1a and g, Article II, Ohio Constitution.  On that same day, 
the court granted the unopposed motion of the casino-initiative committee and its 
members (“petitioners”) to intervene as additional respondents in this case.  State 
ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner, 122 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2009-Ohio-3556, 909 
N.E.2d 1288 
{¶ 7} The parties submitted evidence and briefs, and this cause is now 
before the court for our consideration of the merits. 
Cause of Action Pursuant to Section 1g, Article II of the 
Ohio Constitution 
{¶ 8} Effective November 4, 2008, the voters approved an amendment to 
Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which now provides: 
{¶ 9} “Any initiative, supplementary, or referendum petition may be 
presented in separate parts but each part shall contain a full and correct copy of 
the title, and text of the law, section or item thereof sought to be referred, or the 
proposed law or proposed amendment to the constitution.  * * * To each part of 
such petition shall be attached the statement of the circulator, as may be required 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
by law, that he witnessed the affixing of every signature.  The secretary of state 
shall determine the sufficiency of the signatures not later than one hundred five 
days before the election. 
{¶ 10} “The Ohio supreme court shall have original, exclusive 
jurisdiction over all challenges made to petitions and signatures upon such 
petitions under this section.  Any challenge to a petition or signature on a petition 
shall be filed not later than ninety-five days before the day of the election.  The 
court shall hear and rule on any challenges made to petitions and signatures not 
later than eighty-five days before the election.  If no ruling determining the 
petition or signatures to be insufficient is issued at least eighty-five days before 
the election, the petition and signatures upon such petitions shall be presumed to 
be in all respects sufficient. 
{¶ 11} 
“If the petitions or signatures are determined to be insufficient, 
ten additional days shall be allowed for the filing of additional signatures to such 
petition.  If additional signatures are filed, the secretary of state shall determine 
the sufficiency of those additional signatures not later than sixty-five days before 
the election.  Any challenge to the additional signatures shall be filed not later 
than fifty-five days before the day of the election.  The court shall hear and rule 
on any challenges made to the additional signatures not later than forty-five days 
before the election.  If no ruling determining the additional signatures to be 
insufficient is issued at least forty-five days before the election, the petition and 
signatures shall be presumed to be in all respects sufficient. 
{¶ 12} 
“* * * 
{¶ 13} 
“* * * The foregoing provisions of this section shall be self-
executing, except as herein otherwise provided.  Laws may be passed to facilitate 
their operation, but in no way limiting or restricting either such provisions or the 
powers herein reserved.”   
January Term, 2009 
5 
{¶ 14} As amended, Section 1g, Article II specifies that the secretary of 
state “shall determine the sufficiency of the signatures” not later than 105 days 
before the election.  The secretary has fulfilled her obligation by her certification 
of July 21. 
{¶ 15} Relators’ challenge under Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution, as amended, requesting that the secretary and the boards of elections 
be ordered to investigate the claimed defects and invalidate additional part-
petitions, is improper.  The secretary of state and the boards have now completed 
their review of the sufficiency of the petitions and have timely certified their 
results in accordance with their constitutional and statutory duties.  They have no 
additional duty or authority to further investigate and invalidate additional part-
petitions and signatures following the expiration of the constitutional deadline.  
While this court has “original, exclusive jurisdiction over all challenges made to 
petitions and signatures upon such petitions under this section,” we are not 
authorized under Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution to grant the relief 
that relators request. 
{¶ 16} We thus deny relators’ challenge. 
Mandamus to Compel Investigation and Invalidation 
{¶ 17} Relators request a writ of mandamus to compel the secretary of 
state and the Muskingum County Board of Elections to investigate – or compel 
the secretary of state to order the boards of elections to investigate – the alleged 
election-law violations by circulators of the casino-initiative petition and to 
invalidate certain part-petitions.  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.  
State ex rel. Heffelfinger v. Brunner, 116 Ohio St.3d 172, 2007-Ohio-5838, 876 
N.E.2d 1231, ¶ 13. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 18} Relators have not established their entitlement to the requested 
relief.  The secretary has now ordered an investigation under R.C. 3501.05(N)(1), 
which is distinct from her constitutional sufficiency determination.  Pursuant to 
R.C. 3501.05(N)(1), the secretary of state is authorized to investigate “the 
administration of election laws, frauds, and irregularities in elections in any 
county” and can then “report the violations of election laws to the attorney 
general or prosecuting attorney, or both, for prosecution.”  The investigation 
provided by this statute does not authorize the secretary of state to use these 
investigative results to invalidate part-petitions after the constitutional deadline 
for her sufficiency determination has passed. 
{¶ 19} In addition, relators have not submitted proof that the secretary of 
state and the boards of elections have validated the part-petitions they contest.  
For the most part, they have also not submitted the part-petitions that they are 
challenging as part of their evidentiary submission. 
{¶ 20} In fact, the casino-initiative petitioners have submitted evidence 
that rebuts many of relators’ claims.  For example, the petitioners have established 
that convicted felon Melissa Smith circulated only one part-petition, which 
contained 19 signatures, and that the Butler County Board of Elections rejected it.  
They have also submitted an affidavit of circulator Jamar Owens in which he 
specifies that although his handwriting and signature may not have been 
completely consistent on every part-petition, he did in fact circulate each of the 
part-petitions contested by relators and did personally sign the circulator 
statements for them. 
{¶ 21} The petitioners have also introduced evidence indicating that a 
partial review of relators’ summaries of defective part-petitions showed that 
relators incorrectly reported information concerning the circulator’s name or 
address on 44 out of 330 randomly selected part-petitions.  The petitioners also 
January Term, 2009 
7 
noted that in their limited review of the contested part-petitions, 19 had already 
been invalidated by boards of elections. 
{¶ 22} Finally, the time for the secretary’s sufficiency determination of 
the signatures in the petition has now expired, and neither she nor the boards of 
elections have any further duty or authority after certification under the 
Constitution or any statute to invalidate additional part-petitions and signatures. 
{¶ 23} Therefore, we deny relators’ request for extraordinary relief in 
mandamus. 
Relators’ Motion for a Peremptory Other Writ and 
Request for Oral Argument 
{¶ 24} We deny relators’ motion for a peremptory writ under R.C. 
2503.40, which requests the “other” writ as a substitute for an extraordinary writ, 
i.e., a writ of mandamus.  See State ex rel. Parrott v. Brunner, 117 Ohio St.3d 
175, 2008-Ohio-813, 882 N.E.2d 908, ¶ 11 (court held it would not grant the 
“other writ” as a substitute for a writ of prohibition in a case instituted against the 
secretary of state). 
{¶ 25} We also deny relators’ request for oral argument because the 
parties’ briefs are sufficient to resolve the dispositive legal issues.  State ex rel. 
Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 111 Ohio St.3d 118, 2006-Ohio-5339, 855 
N.E.2d 444, ¶ 16. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 26} Relators have failed to file a proper challenge under Section 1g, 
Article II of the Ohio Constitution and have not established their entitlement to 
either a writ of mandamus or an R.C. 2503.40 writ.  Therefore, we deny the 
requested relief. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
__________________ 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Luther L. Liggett Jr., Anne Marie Sferra, and 
Vladimir P. Belo, for relators. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Aaron D. Epstein, Michael J. 
Schuler, and Richard N. Coglianese, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent 
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. 
 
D. Michael Haddox, Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney, and 
Walter K. Chess Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Muskingum 
County Board of Elections. 
 
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A., Alan G. Starkoff, Matthew L. 
Fornshell, and Matthew T. Green; and McTigue & McGinnis, L.L.C., Donald J. 
McTigue, Mark A. McGinnis, and J. Corey Colombo, for intervening 
respondents. 
______________________