Case Title: State ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus

Citation: 2018-Ohio-1428

Docket Number: 2018-0427

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-1428.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-1428 
THE STATE EX REL. SCHUCK v. THE CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-1428.] 
Elections—Mandamus—Writ of mandamus sought to compel removal of proposed 
city charter amendment from the ballot—Ballot summary conveys sufficient 
information to inform voters what they are being asked to vote on—Writ 
denied. 
(No. 2018-0427—Submitted April 10, 2018—Decided April 13, 2018.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relator, William Schuck, seeks a writ 
of mandamus to compel respondents, the city of Columbus and the Franklin County 
Board of Elections, to remove a proposal to amend the Columbus city charter from 
the May 8, 2018 ballot.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny Schuck’s motion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
for leave to amend his complaint to name Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted as a 
respondent and we deny the writ. 
Background 
Columbus Ordinance 0650-2018 
{¶ 2} The Ohio Constitution authorizes municipalities to adopt charters for 
local self-government.  Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Sections 7 and 8.  The 
city of Columbus is a charter city, having adopted a comprehensive charter for its 
government.  See State ex rel. Davis Invest. Co. v. Columbus, 175 Ohio St. 337, 
341, 194 N.E.2d 859 (1963). 
{¶ 3} The Columbus city charter sets forth two procedures by which the 
charter may be amended, only one of which is relevant here.  Namely, the city 
council may submit a proposed charter amendment to the electors of the city, in the 
form of an ordinance approved by a two-thirds vote of the council.  Columbus 
Charter 45.  The ordinance shall provide for submission of the proposed charter 
amendment to the electors at the next regular municipal election or, if no regular 
municipal election is scheduled to occur within a designated timeframe, at a special 
election.  Columbus Charter 45-2.  In any ordinance placing a proposed charter 
amendment on the ballot, the city council must “prescribe a brief summary of the 
same, which shall be accurate, shall not be misleading, and shall be without material 
omission or argument.”  Columbus Charter 45-4. 
{¶ 4} In its current form, the Columbus city charter provides: “The 
legislative powers of the city, except as reserved to the people by this charter, shall 
be vested in a council, consisting of seven members, elected at large.”  (Emphasis 
added.)  Columbus Charter 3.  An “election at large,” also known as an “at-large 
election,” is defined as “[a]n election in which a public figure is selected from a 
major election district rather than from a subdivision of the larger unit.”  Black’s 
Law Dictionary 631 (10th Ed.2014).  Elsewhere, the charter spells out the operation 
of this at-large voting system: 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
 
 
The candidates for nomination to the office of city council 
member who shall receive the greatest vote in [the] primary shall be 
placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election * * *, and 
the candidates at the regular municipal election, equal in number to 
the places to be filled, who shall receive the highest number of votes 
at such regular municipal election, shall be declared elected. 
 
Columbus Charter 41-5. 
{¶ 5} On September 6, 2016, the Columbus City Council and Columbus 
Mayor Andrew Ginther appointed a nine-member Charter Review Committee to 
review the structure and governance of city council.  In its final report, the 
committee recommended that the council: 
 
2. 
Adopt a “District At-Large” form of Council whereby, * * * 
a. 
The city is apportioned into nine geographic Council 
districts using best practices in apportionment and 
reapportionment. 
b. 
To run for Council, a candidate must live in and file 
for a specific Council district seat. 
c. 
Elections are shifted from at-large field races to at-
large by-place races, where candidates who live in 
the same district run against each other for that seat. 
d. 
Every Columbus voter maintains his/her right to cast 
a vote for the candidate of their choice for every seat 
on Council. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 6} On March 5, 2018, the Columbus City Council approved Columbus 
Ordinance 0650-2018, which proposed to amend the city charter in multiple 
respects and which provided for the submission of the proposed charter amendment 
to the voters for approval.  The ordinance included making the following proposed 
changes to the charter: 
 
Amending Columbus Charter 3 to read: “The legislative powers of the city, 
except as reserved to the people by this charter, shall be vested in a council, 
consisting of nine members, elected from districts by the electors of the 
city”; 
 
Adding a clause to Columbus Charter 4, stating that “[e]ach member of 
council shall be elected from one of nine districts by the electors of the city”; 
 
Adding an express requirement to Columbus Charter 6 that a member of 
council shall have resided within the district the member represents for not 
less than one year preceding the regular primary election for the office; and 
 
Amending Columbus Charter 41-5 by deleting much of the language and 
amending the remainder to read: 
 
 
Every elector of the city may vote for any municipal 
office appearing on a primary, general, or special election 
ballot.  The two candidates for nomination to any municipal 
office, including a councilmember elected by district, who 
shall receive the greatest number of votes in a primary 
election shall be placed on the ballot at a regular municipal 
election, and the candidates at the regular municipal election 
who shall receive the highest number of votes for their 
respective offices at such regular municipal election, shall be 
declared elected. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
 
Thus, the changes proposed in Columbus Ordinance 0650-2018, if approved by the 
voters, would incorporate into the city charter the so-called “at-large by-place” 
system recommended by the Charter Review Committee. 
{¶ 7} To accompany Columbus Ordinance 0650-2018, city council 
approved a “Proposed Charter Amendment Ballot Summary,” consisting of 15 
bullet-point items.  The first sentence of the summary states that the proposed 
charter amendment “[t]ransitions city council from seven members elected at-large 
to nine members elected from districts by the electors of the city.” 
Schuck’s protest 
{¶ 8} On March 9, 2018, Schuck filed a formal protest against the proposed 
charter amendment.  Schuck’s protest made two arguments.  First, he argued that 
the proposed charter amendment was substantively unconstitutional.  Second, he 
argued that the summary language—“nine members elected from districts by the 
electors of the city”—was “false and deceptive” because the council members 
would not be elected from districts—they would be required to reside in districts, 
but they would be elected citywide, a distinction Schuck argued was not made clear 
by the phrase “by the electors of the city.” 
{¶ 9} On March 12, the office of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted 
approved the final ballot language.  And on March 15, the board of elections 
informed Schuck that it would not hold a hearing on his protest.  It declined to 
consider his constitutional challenge to the proposed charter amendment for the 
reason that the board lacked authority to make that determination.  (This issue is 
not before the court in this case.)  As for his objection to the ballot language, the 
board informed him that 
 
[o]ur legal counsel believes that [this second objection] would 
appear to be moot in light of the fact that the Board already has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
submitted the ballot language summary to the Secretary of State 
[who] has responded with [his] approval.  Moreover, the City of 
Columbus’ charter reserves the right of City Council to summarize 
the ballot language. 
 
{¶ 10} Schuck filed suit against the city of Columbus and the Franklin 
County Board of Elections on March 21 and filed an amended complaint on March 
22.  His amended complaint asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the city 
and the board directing them to take all necessary steps to remove the proposed 
charter amendment from the May 8 ballot.  Pursuant to Sup.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(1), 
the case was automatically expedited because it was filed within 90 days of the May 
8 election. 
Analysis 
The merits of the mandamus complaint 
{¶ 11} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear 
and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear 
legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio 
St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13.  Given that the May 2018 election 
is imminent, Schuck does not have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
the law.  See State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 124 Ohio St.3d 
584, 2010-Ohio-1176, 925 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 17 (holding that the relator had no 
adequate remedy at law because the election was imminent at the time the county 
board of elections denied the relator’s protest); accord State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. 
Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573, 
¶ 18. 
{¶ 12} As noted, the Columbus city charter requires the council, when 
placing a proposed charter amendment on the ballot, to adopt summary language.  
January Term, 2018 
 
7
According to the charter, such ballot language “shall be accurate, shall not be 
misleading, and shall be without material omission or argument.”  Columbus 
Charter 45-4.  Schuck seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the removal of the 
proposal from the ballot based on alleged deficiencies in the ballot language. 
{¶ 13} The requirements of Columbus Charter 45-4 mirror other election-
law requirements.  With respect to proposed statewide constitutional amendments, 
ballot language is presumptively valid “unless it is such as to mislead, deceive, or 
defraud the voters.”  Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1.  And when a local 
issue qualifies for the ballot, a county board of elections may use either the entire 
text of the proposal as ballot language, or it may prepare and certify a condensed 
text so long as the text “properly describe[s]” the proposal.  R.C. 3505.06(E).  (If 
the board chooses to use a condensed text, the full text of the proposal, along with 
the percentage of votes necessary for passage, must be posted in each polling place 
in an easily accessible location.  Id.) 
{¶ 14} The text of a ballot statement “ ‘ “must fairly and accurately present 
the question or issue to be decided in order to assure a free, intelligent and informed 
vote by the average citizen affected.” ’ ”  State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot 
Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 29, quoting State ex 
rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519, 426 N.E.2d 493 (1981), quoting 
Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 259 N.E.2d 501 
(1970), paragraph four of the syllabus.  R.C. 3505.06 “serves to inform and protect 
the voter and presupposes a condensed text which is fair, honest, clear and 
complete, and from which no essential part of the proposed amendment is omitted.”  
State ex rel. Minus v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 75, 81, 283 N.E.2d 131 (1972). 
{¶ 15} We evaluate summary ballot language for proposed local issues 
using the same standards used to evaluate ballot language for proposed statewide 
constitutional amendments.  State ex rel. Kilby v. Summit County Bd. of Elections, 
133 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-4310, 977 N.E.2d 590, ¶ 19.  Those standards are 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
that (1) voters have the right to know what they are being asked to vote upon, (2) 
the use of language “ ‘in the nature of a persuasive argument in favor of or against 
the issue’ is prohibited,” and (3) the determinative issue is whether the cumulative 
effect of any technical defects in the ballot language is “ ‘harmless or fatal to the 
validity of the ballot.’ ”  Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 
137, 141, 519 N.E.2d 347 (1988), quoting Bailey at 519. 
{¶ 16} In its third proposition of law, the city asks us to adopt a per se rule 
that a ballot summary cannot be deficient when it uses exactly the same language 
as the proposed charter amendment itself.  As authority, the city cites State ex rel. 
C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 764 N.E.2d 
411 (2002), in which we refused to “penalize the township electors’ attempt to 
exercise their right of referendum for summarizing the resolution with substantially 
the same wording as the resolution itself,” id. at 445.  But that statement was made 
in response to a challenge that the summary did not sufficiently explain the terms 
used therein (“AG” and “PUD” in a zoning referendum to refer to “agricultural” 
and “planned unit development”).  In C.V. Perry, there was no harm in using the 
same abbreviations in the summary as those that appeared in the resolution itself.  
But quoting selected language from a portion of a proposed charter amendment 
verbatim cannot be a complete defense when the allegation is one of material 
omission. 
{¶ 17} From Schuck’s perspective, the critical changes to the charter, the 
ones that flesh out the new voting system, do not appear in proposed Columbus 
Charter 3.  For example, the summary does not explain that voters will cast ballots 
in all council races, including those for representatives in districts where they (the 
voters) do not reside, a legislative change that appears in the proposed amendment 
of Columbus Charter 41-5.  Also, one of the bullet points in the summary explains 
that if a vacancy on the council is filled by appointment, the person receiving the 
appointment must reside in the district, but the summary does not say that 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
Columbus Charter 6 would be amended to impose a residency requirement upon 
elected council members. 
{¶ 18} The city does not dispute that these would be material omissions if 
this information were in fact omitted.  But the city contends that all the required 
information is contained in the single phrase employed in proposed Columbus 
Charter 3: “elected from districts by the electors of the city” necessarily means that 
the candidates for council must come from particular districts and that all the voters 
of the city would vote for each candidate, irrespective of a voter’s residency district. 
{¶ 19} The critical question, then, is whether city council satisfied the first 
prong of the Jurcisin three-part test: does the language of proposed Columbus 
Charter 3, imported wholesale into the summary, convey enough information for 
voters to know what they are being asked to vote on?  We answer that question in 
the affirmative.  The phrase “elected from districts by the electors of the city” 
conveys the important information: the council members will come from districts, 
but they will be elected “by the electors of the city.”  (Emphasis added.)  The final 
clause is unambiguous and would not lead a reasonable reader to believe that 
council members will be elected exclusively by the voters in their residency 
districts. 
{¶ 20} We hold that Schuck is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering 
the removal of the proposal from the May 8 ballot. 
{¶ 21} In the alternative, Schuck complains in his second proposition of law 
that the board of elections failed to conduct an independent assessment of the city’s 
proposed ballot language.  But even assuming this to be true, the prayer for relief 
in Schuck’s amended complaint did not request a remand to the board.  Moreover, 
compelling the board of elections to evaluate the ballot language at this time would 
be an empty gesture given the sufficiency of the ballot language. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
The motion for leave to amend the complaint 
{¶ 22} In its answer, the city pleaded, as an affirmative defense, that Schuck 
“has failed to name all necessary parties to this action including Secretary of State 
Jon Husted.”  In response, Schuck filed a motion for leave to amend his amended 
complaint, if necessary, to add Husted as a respondent and also to add the Delaware 
and Fairfield County Boards of Elections.  Respondents have not opposed the 
motion. 
{¶ 23} At the outset, we deny the portion of Schuck’s motion that asks for 
leave to amend in order to add the Delaware and Fairfield County Boards of 
Elections as respondents.  Schuck states in his motion that he made this request in 
anticipation of an argument by the city of Columbus that those boards are necessary 
parties because portions of Columbus are located in those counties.  However, the 
city has not advanced this argument. 
{¶ 24} The city does, however, contend that Secretary of State Husted is a 
necessary party, based on R.C. 3501.11(V), which requires county boards of 
elections, after approving ballot language for local questions and issues, to 
“transmit the language to the secretary of state for the secretary of state’s final 
approval.”  Schuck disputes whether the secretary of state exercises any substantive 
oversight over the city’s proposed ballot language. 
{¶ 25} Given our disposition of Schuck’s mandamus complaint on the 
merits, we deem it unnecessary to resolve this question.  See State ex rel. Beard v. 
Hardin, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-1286, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 35 (holding that it was 
unnecessary to decide whether the relator failed to name all necessary respondents 
because the relator was not entitled to mandamus relief on the merits).  We therefore 
deny the motion for leave to amend as moot. 
{¶ 26} Based on the foregoing, we deny the request for a writ of mandamus. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, and FISCHER, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2018 
 
11 
KENNEDY, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur in judgment only. 
_________________ 
William Schuck, pro se. 
Zach Klein, Columbus City Attorney, and Richard N. Coglianese, Joshua 
T. Cox, and Charles P. Campisano, Assistant City Attorneys, for respondent city of 
Columbus. 
Ronald J. O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. 
Lecklider, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Franklin County Board 
of Elections. 
_________________