Case Title: State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4334

Docket Number: 20060878

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-4334.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. EVANS, APPELLANT, v. BLACKWELL, SECY. OF STATE, ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-4334.] 
Prohibition — Mandamus — Elections law — Section 1b, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution — Remedy in the ordinary course of law was adequate — 
Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-0878 ─ Submitted August 8, 2006 ─ Decided August 23, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 06AP-6, 2006-Ohio-2076. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying writs of prohibition and 
mandamus.  Appellant, Jacob Evans, an Ohio taxpayer and elector, seeks the 
following:  to prevent the Secretary of State of Ohio from exercising quasi-
judicial authority by circumventing protest proceedings challenging a statewide 
initiative petition before these proceedings have been adjudicated in common 
pleas court and to prevent the Clerks of the Ohio House of Representatives and 
the Ohio Senate from maintaining the Secretary of State’s transmittal of the 
petition on their journals.  Evans also seeks to have that transmittal declared void.  
We affirm. 
Initiative Petition, Verification, Protests, and Transmittal 
{¶ 2} Appellees Donald McClure, Susan Jagers, and Tracy Sabetta are 
members of a committee responsible for a state initiative petition proposing a law 
called “The Smoke Free Workplace Act.”  Under the proposed law, smoking and 
burning tobacco in enclosed areas of public places and in public and private 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
places of employment in Ohio would be generally prohibited.  SmokeFreeOhio, a 
coalition of nonprofit organizations, drafted the proposed law. 
{¶ 3} On November 17, 2005, the committee filed the initiative petition 
with appellee Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.  The petition 
contained over 167,000 signatures from all 88 counties.  On December 1, 2005, in 
accordance with R.C. 3519.15, the secretary transmitted part-petitions to the 
respective boards of elections to determine their validity.  The secretary also 
enclosed Directive 2005-33, which tells the elections boards how to determine the 
validity of the part-petitions and the signatures contained therein.  The boards of 
elections reviewed the part-petitions and then submitted their respective reports to 
the secretary. 
{¶ 4} Beginning on December 21, 2005, Evans filed protests challenging 
the sufficiency of the findings of several boards of elections.  As of March 2006, 
Evans had filed protests in 34 counties, and to facilitate adjudication, the secretary 
had filed a motion in 31 of the 34 counties to intervene and transfer venue to the 
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 
{¶ 5} Between December 23 and the morning of December 28, 2005, the 
Secretary of State received copies of protests against the state initiative that had 
been filed in seven of the 34 counties and had also received unverified reports that 
two other counties had received protests.  The secretary determined that even if all 
of the signatures verified in nine counties were invalid, the valid signatures would 
still exceed the number required for the secretary to transmit the petition to the 
General Assembly pursuant to Section 1b, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. 
{¶ 6} On December 28, 2005, the secretary notified the committee, as 
required by R.C. 3519.16, that the petition contained 117,026 valid signatures and 
that this number was sufficient for the petition to be transmitted to the General 
Assembly.  By letter dated December 28, 2005, the secretary notified appellees 
Laura Clemens, the Clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives, and David 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Battocletti, the Clerk of the Ohio Senate, that the petition met the requirements of 
Sections 1b and 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and transmitted the full 
text and summary of the proposed law to the clerks for the General Assembly’s 
consideration at its 2006 session. 
{¶ 7} On January 3, 2006, the General Assembly convened its second 
regular session, and the clerks journalized the transmittal by the secretary of the 
proposed law. 
Court of Appeals Case 
{¶ 8} On January 3, 2006, Evans filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Franklin County for an emergency writ of prohibition or, in the 
alternative, for a writ of mandamus against the secretary and the clerks “in an 
election case.”  Evans claimed that by not waiting to transmit the proposed law to 
the General Assembly until receiving reports of the boards of elections after the 
common pleas court proceedings on Evans’s protests, the secretary violated 
Section 1b, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.  Furthermore, Evans alleges that 
the secretary, pursuant to R.C. 3519.16, usurped the role of the common pleas 
courts when he declared that the required number of valid signatures was 
presented. 
{¶ 9} Evans requested a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ 
of mandamus to (1) “enjoin the Respondent Clerks from maintaining on their 
respective journals of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate 
entries of receipt of transmittal of the Proposed Law from the Secretary, so that 
such transmittal is treated as never having been received,” (2) “correct the 
Secretary’s jurisdictionally unauthorized actions by declaring null and void the 
Secretary’s report to the committee of December 27, 2005 [sic], and his 
transmittal of the Proposed Law to the General Assembly on December 28, 
2005,” and (3) “enjoin the [Secretary] from exercising quasi judicial authority in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the form of effectively determining the results of pending protest proceedings 
before they have been adjudicated.” 
{¶ 10} The court of appeals appointed a magistrate in the case, and the 
magistrate granted the petition of the committee and members McClure, Jagers, 
and Sabetta to intervene as respondents.  On March 16, 2006, the magistrate 
issued a decision recommending that the court of appeals deny Evans’s request 
for writs of prohibition and mandamus.  The magistrate determined that the 
secretary was not prohibited from certifying the proposed law to the General 
Assembly before the R.C. 3519.16 protest procedures had been exhausted and 
reports following the protest actions had been returned to the secretary.  Evans 
submitted timely objections to the magistrate’s decision, and the appellees filed 
memoranda in opposition to the objections. 
{¶ 11} On April 27, 2006, the court of appeals issued a decision 
overruling Evans’s objections and denying the writs, albeit for reasons different 
from those discussed by the magistrate.  The court of appeals held that Evans was 
not entitled to a writ of prohibition, because neither the secretary nor the clerks 
were exercising quasi-judicial authority in transmitting the petition to the General 
Assembly or accepting the transmitted petition.  The court of appeals further held 
that Evans was not entitled to a writ of mandamus, because he did not object to 
the magistrate’s recommended denial of his mandamus claim.  On May 3, 2006, 
Evans appealed. 
Proceedings After the May 3, 2006 Appeal 
{¶ 12} On May 4, 2006, Judge David E. Cain of the Franklin County 
Court of Common Pleas issued a decision in a case consolidating protests that 
Evans had filed in 34 different counties against the statewide smoke-free 
initiative.  Judge Cain sustained Evans’s protests and invalidated all part-petitions 
listing the American Cancer Society as the circulators’ employer when the 
circulators were actually employed by an independent contractor or were self-
January Term, 2006 
5 
employed.  Judge Cain ordered the parties to submit a complete list of circulators 
not employed by the American Cancer Society who had falsely listed the society 
as their employer.  On May 25, 2006, Judge Cain issued an entry listing the 27 
part-petitions invalidated by his May 4, 2006 decision.  On May 31, Judge Cain 
entered judgment upon his decisions on Evans’s protests. 
{¶ 13} That judgment has been appealed to the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, which denied Evans’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction.  In re Protest of Evans, Franklin App. Nos. 06AP-539, 06AP-540, 
06AP-541, 06AP-542, 06AP-543, 06AP-544, 06AP-545, 06AP-546, 06AP-547, 
and 06AP-548, 2006-Ohio-3453, 2006 WL 1825177. 
{¶ 14} In addition, according to Evans, following the Secretary of State’s 
transmittal of the full text and summary of the proposed statewide initiative that 
was received by the General Assembly on January 3, 2006, the four-month 
legislative session ended without the General Assembly taking any action on it. 
May 8, 2006 Court of Appeals’ Judgment 
{¶ 15} On May 8, 2006, the court of appeals entered a judgment reflecting 
its April 27, 2006 decision and denied the writs of prohibition and mandamus.  
Evans filed an amended notice of appeal from that judgment.  This appeal was 
fully briefed on July 31, 2006. 
{¶ 16} This cause is now before us upon Evans’s appeal as of right from 
the court of appeals’ judgment denying the requested extraordinary relief in 
prohibition and mandamus.  S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A). 
Mandamus 
{¶ 17} In his complaint, Evans included an alternate claim for a writ of 
mandamus.  Evans does not contest the court of appeals’ denial of his mandamus 
claim in this appeal. 
{¶ 18} Moreover, even if Evans did challenge the denial of the writ, he 
waived any error by failing to object to that portion of the magistrate’s decision 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
recommending denial of the writ.  See State ex rel. Schmidt v. School Emp. 
Retirement Sys., 100 Ohio St.3d 317, 2003-Ohio-6086, 798 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 19} Finally, Evans seeks relief in the nature of a declaratory judgment 
and prohibitory injunction, which both this court and the court of appeals lack 
jurisdiction to grant on a purported mandamus claim.  State ex rel. Mackey v. 
Blackwell, 106 Ohio St.3d 261, 2005-Ohio-4789, 834 N.E.2d 346, ¶ 13, 16.  “In 
general, if the allegations of a complaint for a writ of mandamus indicate that the 
real objects sought are a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction, the 
complaint does not state a cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed for 
want of jurisdiction.”  State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 
629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 704. 
Prohibition:  Ten-Day Period of Section 1b, Article II 
{¶ 20} Evans first alleges that the Secretary of State violated Section 1b, 
Article II of the Ohio Constitution.  The provision states: 
{¶ 21} “When at any time, not less than ten days prior to the 
commencement of any session of the general assembly, there shall have been filed 
with the secretary of state a petition signed by three per centum of the electors and 
verified as herein provided, proposing a law, the full text of which shall have been 
set forth in such petition, the secretary of state shall transmit the same to the 
general assembly as soon as it convenes.” 
{¶ 22} Evans claims that because the secretary did not receive the last of 
the petitions from the board of elections until December 28, 2005, and the 
secretary did not verify that the petition contained the requisite number of 
signatures until that date, he could not transmit the petition to the General 
Assembly for the session beginning January 3, 2006, because that session was 
“less than ten days” away on December 28. 
{¶ 23} Evans did not raise this claim in his complaint or move to amend 
his complaint to include this claim.  Thus, the claim is without merit.  State ex rel. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-662, 
842 N.E.2d 508, ¶ 15.  The parties stipulated to facts and evidence based upon the 
claims specified in Evans’s complaint, and although Evans raised this issue in his 
reply briefs in the court of appeals, the secretary specifically objected to Evans’s 
untimely claim.1  Although the magistrate addressed this claim, the court of 
appeals ultimately did not specifically address the merits of the claim, and under 
the foregoing circumstances, the court of appeals did not err in failing to do so.  
State ex rel. BSW Dev. Group v. Dayton (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 338, 344-345, 699 
N.E.2d 1271; see, also, State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 
Ohio St.3d 385, 390-391, 715 N.E.2d 179. 
{¶ 24} Finally, as the Secretary of State contends, Evans did not establish 
that the petition contained an insufficient number of signatures on the Section 1b, 
Article II deadline of “not less than ten days prior to the commencement” of the 
January 2006 session of the General Assembly.  See Section 1b, Article II, Ohio 
Constitution (“a petition signed by three per centum of the electors and verified as 
herein provided”), and Section 1g, Article II, Ohio Constitution (“Upon all 
initiative * * * petitions provided for in any of the sections of this article, it shall 
be necessary to file from each of one-half of the counties of the state, petitions 
bearing the signatures of not less than one-half of the designated percentage of the 
electors of such county”).  That is, the Secretary of State did not need to wait for 
all of the counties’ sufficiency reports to know that the petition contained 
sufficient verified signatures for transmission to the General Assembly. 
{¶ 25} Therefore, Evans is not entitled to the requested writ of prohibition 
based upon his claim that the Secretary of State did not receive the reports from 
                                                 
1.  In his argument in the court of appeals, the Secretary of State asserted:  “[The claim] was not 
made in the Complaint.  It was not the subject of the Stipulations or Discovery.  It was not 
mentioned in [Evans’s] initial Appellate Brief.  Indeed, the first time this issue was ever raised 
was in [Evans’s] Reply Brief ─ by which time it was too late for any of the [appellees] to either 
reply to the argument in their merit briefs or to submit additional evidence.”   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
all of Ohio’s county boards of elections before the commencement of the ten-day 
period preceding the January 2006 session of the General Assembly because he 
waived its consideration by the court of appeals. 
Prohibition:  Secretary of State Need Not Wait for Protest Proceedings to Be 
Completed Before Transmitting the Petition 
{¶ 26} In Evans’s primary prohibition claim, he asserts that the court of 
appeals erred in denying a writ of prohibition because the Secretary of State was 
required to wait for the completion of the common pleas court protest proceedings 
before he could transmit the initiative petition to the General Assembly. 
{¶ 27} The Secretary of State must transmit a petition to the General 
Assembly if it is “signed by three per centum of the electors and verified as herein 
provided.”  Section 1b, Article II, Ohio Constitution.  Section 1g, Article II 
specifies certain requirements for statewide initiative and referendum petitions 
and provides that “[t]he petition and signatures upon such petitions shall be 
presumed to be in all respects sufficient, unless not later than forty days before the 
election, it shall be otherwise proved and in such event ten additional days shall 
be allowed for the filing of additional signatures to such petition.”  Section 1g 
further specifies that “[l]aws may be passed to facilitate the[] operation” of the 
constitutional provisions, “but in no way limiting or restricting either such 
provisions or the powers herein reserved.” 
{¶ 28} R.C. 3519.15 and 3519.16 are laws passed pursuant to that 
provision to facilitate the operation of Sections 1b and 1g, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution.  Under R.C. 3519.15, when a statewide initiative or referendum 
petition is filed with the Secretary of State, “he shall forthwith separate the part-
petitions by counties and transmit such part-petitions to the boards of elections in 
the respective counties.”  The boards then ascertain whether each part-petition is 
properly verified and whether the signatures are valid and submit reports to the 
Secretary of State containing their findings.  Id. 
January Term, 2006 
9 
{¶ 29} R.C. 3519.16 provides a procedure by which protests may be filed 
challenging the board’s findings under R.C. 3519.15.  There is no statutory 
deadline for filing a protest under R.C. 3519.16 for a statewide initiative or 
referendum petition.  Under R.C. 3519.16, when a protest is filed, the board must 
“establish the sufficiency or insufficiency of the signatures and of the verification 
of those signatures in an action” in the county common pleas court.  Once the 
common pleas court makes its decision in the protest action, the board is to certify 
an additional report, and with the properly verified petition parts, send it to the 
“secretary of state not less than fifty days before the election, provided that, in the 
case of an initiated law to be presented to the general assembly, the boards shall 
promptly check and return the petitions together with their report.”  R.C. 3519.16.  
The Secretary of State shall then “notify the chairperson of the committee in 
charge of the circulation as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition and 
the extent of the insufficiency.”  Id. 
{¶ 30} In order to be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, Evans 
must establish that (1) the secretary and the clerks are about to exercise quasi-
judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) 
denying the writ will result in injury for which no adequate remedy exists in the 
ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 
Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 21.  “In general, absent a patent 
and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, the entity exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial authority can be challenged in the ordinary course of law rather than by 
extraordinary relief in prohibition.”  State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. 
Montgomery, 100 Ohio St.3d 343, 2003-Ohio-6446, 800 N.E.2d 18, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 31} Evans claims that he is entitled to extraordinary relief in 
prohibition because the secretary patently and unambiguously lacked authority 
under the constitutional and statutory scheme to transmit the petition to the 
General Assembly without waiting for the common pleas courts’ adjudication of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
all of the various protest proceedings against the petition and the submission of a 
second set of reports reflecting those proceedings from the boards of elections to 
the secretary.  According to Evans, by so acting, the secretary usurped the judicial 
authority of the common pleas courts. In extreme cases, prohibition may lie 
against even ministerial officers or entities if they are abusing or usurping judicial 
functions.  State ex rel. Nolan v. ClenDening (1915), 93 Ohio St. 264, 270, 112 
N.E. 1029. 
{¶ 32} Evans’s claim, however, lacks merit.  Section 1b, Article II of the 
Ohio Constitution does not expressly condition the secretary’s duty to transmit the 
petition to the General Assembly upon receipt of reports after the completion of 
R.C. 3519.16 protest proceedings.  After all, R.C. 3519.16 sets no deadline by 
which an interested party must file a protest against a statewide initiative or 
referendum petition.  Therefore, making the secretary wait for a second set of 
verification reports from boards of elections that may never arrive unreasonably 
fails to advance the constitutional right of initiative.  See State ex rel. Hodges v. 
Taft (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 591 N.E.2d 1186 (“The powers of initiative and 
referendum should be liberally construed to effectuate the rights reserved”); State 
ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 
28 (courts have a duty to construe constitutional and legislative provisions to 
avoid unreasonable or absurd consequences).  Indeed, even R.C. 3519.16, when 
read in pari materia with R.C. 3519.15, does not explicitly command the secretary 
to await the conclusion of all protest proceedings before transmitting the petition 
to the General Assembly.  State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. 
Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 46 (statutes 
relating to the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia and 
construed to give them full effect). 
{¶ 33} The Secretary of State may not, however, transmit the initiative 
petition to the General Assembly pursuant to Section 1b, Article II of the Ohio 
January Term, 2006 
11 
Constitution until he has received reports back from the boards of elections in 
accordance with R.C. 3519.15.  Cappelletti v. Celebrezze (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 
395, 396, 12 O.O.3d 343, 390 N.E.2d 829.  The secretary received these initial 
reports here. 
{¶ 34} The Secretary of State’s interpretation of the pertinent 
constitutional and statutory provisions is not unreasonable.  We must therefore 
defer to the secretary’s reasonable interpretation.  Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 13 (court’s 
duty is to defer to Secretary of State’s interpretation of election law if law is 
subject to two different, but equally reasonable, interpretations). 
{¶ 35} In addition, the secretary determined that even if all of the protests 
that were pending at the time he transmitted the petition to the General Assembly 
were meritorious, the petition would still have had sufficient valid signatures to 
warrant its submission to the General Assembly. 
{¶ 36} Under these circumstances, the secretary did not patently and 
unambiguously lack jurisdiction to transmit the proposed law to the General 
Assembly, and Evans was relegated to the ordinary course of law to seek an 
alternate remedy. 
{¶ 37} The presence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law 
precludes the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition.  “[P]rohibition will not 
issue if the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  State 
ex rel. Downs v. Panioto, 107 Ohio St.3d 347, 2006-Ohio-8, 839 N.E.2d 911, ¶ 
27.  In order for an alternate remedy to be adequate, it must be complete, 
beneficial, and speedy.  State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common 
Pleas, 106 Ohio St.3d 151, 2005-Ohio-4103, 832 N.E.2d 1206, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 38} The specific relief requested by Evans in the court of appeals 
establishes that he has or had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by 
an action for declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction in the common 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
pleas court.  In effect, Evans requested (1) a prohibitory injunction preventing the 
Clerks of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate from 
“maintaining on their respective journals * * * entries of receipt of transmittal” of 
the proposed law from the Secretary of State, (2) a judgment “declaring null and 
void” the secretary’s December 28, 2005 transmittal of the proposed law to the 
General Assembly, and (3) a prohibitory injunction barring the secretary “from 
exercising quasi judicial authority by determining the results of pending protest 
proceedings before they have been adjudicated.” 
{¶ 39} In fact, in one of his briefs in the court of appeals, Evans conceded 
as much by claiming that “declaratory judgment is not an adequate remedy unless 
coupled with extraordinary ancillary relief in the nature of a prohibition 
injunction.”    Because a mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it does 
not constitute an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. 
Fenske v. McGovern (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 129, 11 OBR 426, 464 N.E.2d 525, 
paragraph one of the syllabus.  But Evans admits that his request was for a 
prohibitory injunction, which is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law.  Civ.R. 65; State ex rel. United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement 
Workers of Am. v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 108 Ohio St.3d 432, 2006-Ohio-1327, 
844 N.E.2d 335, ¶ 54-55. 
{¶ 40} To be sure, this case is related to the November 2006 general 
election because ─ as Evans emphasizes ─ the Secretary of State’s December 28, 
2005 transmission of the proposed law to the General Assembly began a four-
month period that made placement of the proposed law on that upcoming election 
ballot a possibility.  See Section 1b, Article II, Ohio Constitution (“If [the 
proposed law] shall not be passed [by the General Assembly], or if it shall be 
passed in an amended form, or if no action shall be taken thereon within four 
months from the time it is received by the general assembly, it shall be submitted 
by the secretary of state to the electors for their approval or rejection at the next 
January Term, 2006 
13 
regular or general election, if such submission shall be demanded by supplemental 
petition verified as herein provided and signed by not less than three per centum 
of the electors in addition to those signing the original petition”). 
{¶ 41} Because the General Assembly did not adopt the proposed law 
within this four-month period, under Section 1b, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution, if a timely, sufficient supplemental petition is filed, the secretary 
must submit the Smoke Free Workplace Act to the electorate at the November 
2006 election.  Evans seeks to prevent this result. 
{¶ 42} We have often held in election cases that “given the closeness of 
the election date * * *, relators lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law” because alternate remedies are not sufficiently speedy.  Brown, 109 Ohio 
St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 22.  See, generally, State ex rel. Thurn 
v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 291-292, 649 
N.E.2d 1205; State ex rel. Smart v. McKinley (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 5, 6, 18 
O.O.3d 128, 412 N.E.2d 393. 
{¶ 43} Nevertheless, when an election is not imminent at the time an 
action such as this one is filed, prohibition will not lie, because “[a]n action for a 
prohibitory injunction in common pleas court provides an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law.”  Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio 
St.3d 425, 2004-Ohio-3701, 811 N.E.2d 1130, ¶ 18.  Although Evans claims that 
“a common declaratory judgment action usually takes over a year to judgment,” 
he could have moved for accelerated consideration of the action. 
{¶ 44} In Tatman, the pertinent election was more than six months away 
when the relator filed his prohibition action to prevent a person’s candidacy for 
county sheriff at the general election.  Id. at ¶ 3.  We dismissed the cause because 
“[a]n action for a prohibitory injunction in common pleas court provides an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  Id. at ¶ 18. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
{¶ 45} Similarly, when Evans filed his court of appeals action for writs of 
prohibition and mandamus, a November 2006 election on the proposed law that 
he sought to prevent was over 11 months away.  He had an adequate legal remedy 
by an action for a declaratory judgment that the secretary’s transmission of the 
petition to the General Assembly was improper and a prohibitory injunction 
preventing the General Assembly and the Secretary of State from further acting 
pursuant to Section 1b, Article II of the Ohio Constitution on the proposed law, 
including barring its placement on the November 2006 election ballot.  Evans did 
not allege or establish evidence of any present injury that would have prevented 
an action for declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction from providing a 
complete, beneficial, and speedy remedy.  See State ex rel. Earl v. Shafer (1999), 
85 Ohio St.3d 370, 708 N.E.2d 714; see, also, Freedom Road Found. v. Ohio 
Dept. of Liquor Control (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 202, 204, 685 N.E.2d 522 
(declaratory judgment is proper when speedy relief is necessary to preserve rights 
that may otherwise be impaired or lost). 
{¶ 46} Finally, insofar as Evans claims that the harm caused by the 
Secretary of State in transmitting the petition to the General Assembly is that the 
legislature “could enact the proposed law into a real law” even though the 
requisite number of signatures is lacking, Evans concedes that the General 
Assembly never enacted the law in this case. 
{¶ 47} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals’ denial of the writ of 
prohibition was proper. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 48} The court of appeals did not err in denying the writs of prohibition 
and mandamus.  Evans had an adequate remedy by way of an action for 
declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction in the court of common pleas.  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2006 
15 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and O’DONNELL, JJ., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Quintin F. Lindsmith, Anne Marie Sferra, and 
Maria J. Armstrong, for appellant. 
 
Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, L.L.P., Donald C. Brey, Elizabeth J. Watters, 
and Deborah A. Scott, for appellee Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. 
 
McTigue Law Group, Donald J. McTigue, and Mark A. McGinnis, for 
appellees Donald McClure, Susan Jagers, Tracy Sabetta, and SmokeFree Ohio. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Sharon A. Jennings, Senior Deputy Attorney 
General, and Holly J. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees Laura 
Clemens, Clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives, and David Battocletti, 
Clerk of the Ohio Senate. 
______________________