Case Title: State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment Petition v. Hamilton

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1623

Docket Number: 20011663

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment Petition v. Hamilton, 93 Ohio St.3d 
508, 2001-Ohio-1623] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. COMMITTEE FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PETITION—
THE MILLIKIN WOODS PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF HAMILTON ET 
AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment Petition v. Hamilton 
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 508.] 
Elections — Mandamus sought to compel Hamilton City Council to place 
proposed charter amendment on November ballot — No duty to submit 
proposed charter amendment unless all statutory requirements are 
satisfied — R.C. 3501.38(I) and (K) prohibit filing of additional part-
petitions — Writ denied. 
(No. 01-1663 — Submitted October 9, 2001 — Decided October 11, 2001.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Millikin Woods is a city park located in respondent city of 
Hamilton, Ohio.  In December 2000, the Hamilton City Council passed legislation 
authorizing the city manager to obtain money from the Ohio Public Works 
Commission to fund the extension of a roadway through Millikin Woods.  
Relator, Committee for the Charter Amendment Petition – The Millikin Woods 
Preservation Association (“committee”), circulated petition papers proposing a 
charter amendment that would prohibit the Hamilton City Council from 
constructing, opening, altering, or widening any street, alley, or public highway in 
or through Millikin Woods. 
 
On August 17, 2001, the committee submitted the petition papers to the 
acting city clerk.  The petition consisted of twenty-eight part-petitions and 
contained 1,272 signatures.  On August 24, 2001, the Butler County Board of 
Elections verified 1,044 of the petition signatures as valid, which was less than 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the 1,066 required for submission of the proposed charter amendment to the 
electorate. 
 
On August 31, 2001, the committee submitted five supplemental part-
petitions containing eighty-seven signatures for the proposed charter amendment 
to the acting city clerk.  The board of elections verified eighty-one of the 
signatures on the supplemental petition as valid. 
 
On September 12, 2001, the city council rejected the initiative petition 
because the part-petitions submitted on August 17, 2001, contained insufficient 
signatures to submit the proposed charter amendment to the electorate.  The city 
council also rejected the August 31, 2001 supplemental petition. 
 
On September 14, 2001, the committee filed this expedited election action 
for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, the city of Hamilton and Mayor 
Adolph Olivas, “to pass legislation which authorizes a November election” on the 
proposed charter amendment.  Respondents filed an answer, and the parties filed 
evidence and briefs pursuant to the expedited election schedule set forth in 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). 
 
This cause is now before the court for a consideration of the merits. 
 
The committee requests a writ of mandamus to compel the Hamilton City 
Council to pass legislation authorizing the placement of the proposed charter 
amendment on the November 6, 2001 election ballot. 
 
Under Section 18.06, Article XVIII of the Hamilton Charter, the charter 
“may be amended as provided for by the Constitution of Ohio.”  Section 7, Article 
XVIII of the Ohio Constitution authorizes municipal corporations to adopt and 
amend a home rule charter, and Sections 8 and 9, Article XVIII prescribe the 
procedures for adopting and amending a charter.  State ex rel. Commt. for Charter 
Amendment Petition v. Avon (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 590, 592, 693 N.E.2d 205, 
207.  Section 9 of Article XVIII, which incorporates the requirements of Section 
8, requires the legislative authority of any city, e.g., city council, upon petition of 
January Term, 2001 
3 
ten percent of the electors, to “forthwith” authorize by ordinance an election on a 
proposed charter amendment.  Id.  When a municipal legislative authority 
erroneously fails to submit a charter amendment when it is presented with a 
legally sufficient petition, extraordinary relief in mandamus is available to order 
placement on the next regular election ballot.  State ex rel. Huebner v. W. 
Jefferson Village Council (1995), 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 385, 662 N.E.2d 339, 343. 
 
The city council, however, had no duty to submit the proposed charter 
amendment to the electorate unless all statutory requirements were satisfied.  
State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 334, 
335-336, 617 N.E.2d 1120, 1122.  Pertinent portions of statutes that do not 
conflict with either the Constitution or the charter, including R.C. 3501.38, which 
pertains to petition requirements, are applicable.  Morris v. Macedonia City 
Council (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 52, 55, 641 N.E.2d 1075, 1078; see, also, Section 
2.02, Article II of the Hamilton Charter (“When not prescribed in this Charter or 
by ordinance or resolution, then the powers shall be exercised in the manner 
provided by the laws of Ohio until Council provides a different manner of 
exercising the powers”). 
 
As the committee concedes, its initial petition, filed on August 17, lacked 
sufficient signatures to require city council to order the submission of the 
proposed charter amendment to the electorate.  Further, R.C. 3501.38(I) and (K) 
prohibited the committee’s attempt to supplement its August 17 petition papers 
with additional part-petitions on August 31.  See R.C. 3501.38(I) (“No * * * 
additions may be made to a petition after it is filed in a public office”) and R.C. 
3501.38(K) (“All separate petition papers shall be filed at the same time, as one 
instrument”). 
 
In State ex rel. McMillan v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections (1992), 65 
Ohio St.3d 186, 189, 602 N.E.2d 631, 633, we held in a case involving a 
comparable fact pattern: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
“[A] candidate may file only one declaration of candidacy and set of 
petition papers as one instrument with the board of elections.  Thus, in this case, 
Kobelak’s first filing is the only filing permitted.  Since this filing did not contain 
enough signatures, the board did not have the authority to place his name on the 
ballot.  Moreover, since a candidate may not alter, correct, or add to a petition 
after its filing, R.C. 3501.38(I), Kobelak may not file, nor may the board of 
elections accept, additional petition papers to add to the signature total.” 
 
Although in State ex rel. Rose v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 90 
Ohio St.3d 229, 736 N.E.2d 886, syllabus, as cited by the committee in its reply 
brief, we held that “[n]either R.C. 3501.38(I) nor (K) prohibits the withdrawal of 
previously filed petitions and the submission of either new petitions or the 
resubmission of combined but unaltered petitions before the filing deadline,” the 
committee did not withdraw its initial petition and attempt to resubmit it with 
additional part-petitions as one instrument here.  Therefore, Rose is inapposite and 
R.C. 3501.38(I) and (K) prohibited the committee from filing additions to the first 
petition and submitting different parts of the petition at different times. 
 
The committee’s reliance on State ex rel. Citizens for a Better Portsmouth 
v. Sydnor (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 49, 572 N.E.2d 649, State ex rel. Spadafora v. 
Toledo City Council (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 546, 644 N.E.2d 393, and R.C. 
3519.16, is also misplaced.  In Sydnor, the issue of possible noncompliance with 
R.C. 3501.38(I) and (K) was neither raised nor addressed, and R.C. 3519.16 is 
restricted to statewide initiative and referendum petitions, which this case does 
not involve.  See State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 228, 
685 N.E.2d 754, 758 (“[W]e have consistently recognized that R.C. Chapter 3519 
applies only to statewide initiative and referendum petitions”).  And Spadafora 
“merely require[s] that if a municipal initiative or referendum petition includes an 
R.C. 3519.05 circulator’s compensation or elector-knowledge statement, it may 
January Term, 2001 
5 
be required to comply with R.C. 3519.06 to the extent that the statements must be 
truthful and cannot be altered.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Id. at 229, 685 N.E.2d at 759. 
 
Finally, although the city council was unable to specifically reject the 
committee’s petition until after the deadline had passed, our judgment in Morris, 
contrary to the committee’s claims, does not require issuance of the writ where 
the petition on its face does not comply with the applicable statutory 
requirements.  In Morris, 71 Ohio St.3d at 56, 641 N.E.2d at 1078, we 
emphasized that the applicable deadline had passed to place the charter 
amendment on the next general election ballot because of delay caused by an 
objection that went beyond the authority of council to decide.  Here, however, the 
defect in the first petition—lack of sufficient valid signatures—is conceded by the 
committee in this action and the manifestly applicable statutory provisions and 
controlling precedent precluded the committee’s subsequent attempt to add more 
signatures to their previous filing. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the committee is not entitled to the requested 
extraordinary relief in mandamus.  The city council did not err in refusing to 
submit the proposed charter amendment to the electorate.  Accordingly, we deny 
the writ. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Repper & Powers and Christopher J. Pagan, for relator. 
 
Hillary G. Miller, Hamilton Director of Law, and Susan M. Gertz, 
Assistant Director of Law, for respondents. 
__________________