Case Title: State ex rel. N. Olmsted v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1626

Docket Number: 20011752

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. N. Olmsted v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio St.3d 529, 2001-
Ohio-1626] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD 
OF ELECTIONS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. N. Olmsted v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 529.] 
Mandamus sought to compel Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to complete 
the process rearranging North Olmsted’s election precincts to conform 
to new ward boundaries by notifying all affected registered voters of 
their new precincts and polling places for the November 6, 2001 general 
election — Writ denied, when. 
(No. 01-1752 — Submitted October 18, 2001 — Decided October 23, 2001.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The 2001 filing deadline for elective offices in the city of 
North Olmsted, relator, was March 9, 2001.  On March 30, 2001, the Secretary of 
State of Ohio issued a proclamation that the population for North Olmsted 
determined by the 2000 federal census was 34,113.  Based on the census, the 
population for the four wards in North Olmsted are 7,532 (Ward 1), 8,273 (Ward 
2), 9,304 (Ward 3), and 9,004 (Ward 4). 
 
After the Secretary of State’s proclamation of the 2000 federal census 
figures, the North Olmsted City Council held meetings to redistrict the four wards 
pursuant to Section 7, Article IX of the North Olmsted Charter.  The city council 
retained the services of an expert to assist in the redistricting. 
 
On May 8, 2001, North Olmsted held a primary election.  There was only 
one contested nomination in the primary election, and in that race for council 
member for Ward 2, the margin of victory was two hundred votes. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
On June 19, 2001, the city council approved the redistricting of the city’s 
wards so that the ward populations would be as close as practicable given natural 
existing boundaries.  On June 27, 2001, the clerk of council submitted a new ward 
map reflecting the redistricting to respondent, the Cuyahoga County Board of 
Elections, for its use in assigning new precincts.  Under the redistricting approved 
by the city council, the new wards have the following populations:  8,531 (Ward 
1), 8,500 (Ward 2), 8,555 (Ward 3), and 8,527 (Ward 4). 
 
On September 21, 2001, the board sent a proposed precinct map to North 
Olmsted that depicted new election precincts conforming to the city’s redistricted 
ward boundaries. 
 
On September 24, the board’s director, Thomas Jelepis, notified various 
North Olmsted officials that the board could not complete its rearranging of the 
election precincts for the Cuyahoga County cities of North Olmsted, Fairview 
Park, and Euclid.  Jelepis advised North Olmsted that voters in each of these cities 
would vote in the November 6, 2001 general election in their existing election 
precincts despite the ward redistricting that had occurred in these cities. 
 
On September 27, North Olmsted demanded that the board rearrange the 
city’s election precincts to conform to the new ward boundaries.  If the city 
election precincts are not rearranged to conform to the new ward boundaries 
established by North Olmsted, some registered voters will vote in their old wards 
rather than in their new wards in the November 6, 2001 general election.  In its 
demand, the city, through its law director, asserted that the board had a clear legal 
duty to complete the redistricting before the November 6 general election and that 
a claimed lack of manpower by the board was not a justifiable excuse to perform 
the ministerial task of notifying registered voters of the changes. 
 
Despite a scheduled September 29 board meeting to discuss revising the 
precincts in North Olmsted and the other cities, the board failed to meet on that 
date due to the lack of a quorum.  According to North Olmsted, further 
January Term, 2001 
3 
communications with the board after September 24 indicated that the board might 
reconsider its decision and complete the rearrangement in time for the general 
election, but the September 29 cancellation prevented that from occurring. 
 
On October 1, 2001, North Olmsted filed this expedited election action for 
a writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to complete the task of 
rearranging the city’s election precincts to conform to the new ward boundaries 
by notifying all affected registered North Olmsted voters of their new precincts 
and polling places and to perform other necessary and appropriate ministerial 
tasks to complete the process in time for the November 6, 2001 general election.  
North Olmsted also moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent the board 
from issuing absentee ballots to registered voters in North Olmsted or accepting 
absentee ballots from those voters until we rule on the merits of the city’s action. 
 
On October 2, the board met to consider the redistricting issues concerning 
Euclid, Fairview Park, and North Olmsted.  The board voted to rearrange the 
precincts of Euclid with an effective date before the November 6, 2001 general 
election.  There had been no 2001 primary election in Euclid.  The board then 
voted to rearrange the election precincts in Fairview Park with an effective date 
after the November 6, 2001 general election.  Finally, after recessing into 
executive session to discuss this litigation instituted by North Olmsted, the board 
voted unanimously to rearrange the election precincts of North Olmsted effective 
after the November 6, 2001 municipal election in North Olmsted.  The board 
noted that North Olmsted had already started its 2001 election process with the 
May 2001 primary election, which was completed before redistricting. 
 
We subsequently granted the city’s motion and issued a temporary 
restraining order, and the parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to the 
expedited election schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).  93 Ohio St.3d 1443, 756 
N.E.2d 109.  This cause is now before the court for consideration of the merits. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
North Olmsted requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board of 
elections to complete the process of rearranging the municipal election precincts 
to conform to the new ward boundaries by notifying all affected registered voters 
of their new precincts and polling places for the November 6, 2001 general 
election.  In order to be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
mandamus, North Olmsted must establish a clear legal right to completion of the 
redistricting process, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board, and 
the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. 
Becker v. Eastlake (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 756 N.E.2d 1228. 
 
In attempting to establish the foregoing requirements, North Olmsted must 
prove that the board engaged in fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear 
disregard of statutes or pertinent law.  State ex rel. Stevens v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 736 N.E.2d 882, 884.  North Olmsted 
contends that the board abused its discretion and acted in clear disregard of the 
North Olmsted Charter, R.C. 3501.08, and 3501.18(A), by deciding to delay the 
effective date of the redistricting until after the November 6, 2001 general 
election. 
 
Section 7, Article IX of the North Olmsted Charter provides the following 
procedure for the redistricting of municipal wards after each federal census: 
 
“SEC. 7.  GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
 
“After each recurring Federal Census and within three months after the 
issuance of the proclamation by the Secretary of State, certifying the population 
of the City, or when there is annexed thereto, any territory, the council shall re-
district the City into four (4) wards, if necessary, so as to have each ward as 
nearly equal in population as practicable and which shall be bounded by county 
lines, streets, alleys, avenues, public grounds, canals, water courses, municipal 
corporate lines, or center lines of platted streets in said ward. 
January Term, 2001 
5 
 
“If the Council fails to make such subdivision within the time required, it 
shall then be made by the Director of Public Service. 
 
“Where no special provision is made in this Charter governing general, 
primary or special elections, registration and the conduct of such elections, the 
provisions of the general law of the State of Ohio shall control.”  (Emphasis 
added.) 
 
R.C. 731.06, which addresses the subdivision of a city into wards by its 
legislative authority, provides: 
 
“(F)  Action of the legislative authority to divide the city into wards shall 
be taken by ordinance and shall be effective for the first municipal primary 
election occurring at least one hundred fifty days after the passage of the 
ordinance.” 
 
North Olmsted contends that the charter section prevails over R.C. 731.06 
and provides that when the city redistricted the wards following the 2000 federal 
census, the redistricting became immediately effective for the next election, which 
is the November 6, 2001 general election.  The board counters that R.C. 731.06(F) 
applies and delays the effective date of the redistricting until the next municipal 
primary election.1 
 
In resolving this dispute, we are guided by the precept that “[m]unicipal 
charters must be construed to give effect to all separate provisions and to 
harmonize them with statutory provisions whenever possible.”  State ex rel. 
Fattlar v. Boyle (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 123, 127, 698 N.E.2d 987, 990.  In other 
words, “[i]n the absence of express language in a charter demonstrating a conflict 
with a statute, it is the duty of courts to harmonize the provisions of the charter 
                                          
 
1. 
North Olmsted claims that the board waited until after it filed this action to contend that it 
could not implement the new precincts before the November 6, 2001 general election because the 
redistricting had not been in effect before the city’s May 2001 primary election.  But in its motion 
for a temporary restraining order, the city conceded that the board had raised this argument before 
the city filed this action. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
and statutes relating to the same matter.”  State ex rel. Ryant Commt. v. Lorain 
Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 112, 712 N.E.2d 696, 700. 
 
There is no express language in Section 7, Article IX of the North Olmsted 
Charter demonstrating a conflict with R.C. 731.06(F).  To the contrary, Section 7 
does not expressly state the effective date of redistricting for purposes of 
upcoming elections.  At best, Section 7 merely lists general provisions concerning 
redistricting, and specifies that in the absence of special provisions in the charter, 
the general law of Ohio, which includes R.C. 731.06, controls.  The “conduct of 
such elections” in Section 7, Article IX of the charter encompasses the question of 
when redistricting is effective for purposes of an election. 
 
Under R.C. 731.06(F), redistricting does not become effective until the 
“first municipal primary election occurring at least one hundred fifty days” after 
the city’s legislative authority approves the redistricting.  Consequently, where, as 
here, the city council did not approve redistricting until after the 2001 election 
cycle had already commenced with the May primary election, the redistricting 
could not become effective until after the November 6, 2001 general election.  
This result is mandated by the plain language of R.C. 731.06(F), as incorporated 
in Section 7, Article IX of the North Olmsted Charter. 
 
As we have previously observed, “boards of elections ‘are the local 
authorities best equipped to gauge compliance with election laws.’ ”  Stevens, 90 
Ohio St.3d at 228, 736 N.E.2d at 886, quoting State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 224, 231, 685 N.E.2d 754, 760.  The Attorney General of 
Ohio has similarly concluded that R.C. 731.06 postpones the effective date of the 
redistricting.  1961 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2500, 561, paragraph three of the 
syllabus (“Where city wards are redistricted under the provisions of Section 
731.06, Revised Code, after a primary election was held for the nomination of 
ward councilmen, such redistricting has no effect on the general election 
January Term, 2001 
7 
following such primary election and does not become effective until the next 
ensuing election of municipal officers”). 
 
Other jurisdictions have commented on the wisdom of postponing the 
effective date of redistricting or reapportionment until after the general election.  
See, e.g., Burkhart v. Sine (1997), 200 W.Va. 328, 332, 489 S.E.2d 485, 489, fn. 1 
(“we hope County Commissions in the future will refrain from redistricting 
county magisterial districts between the primary election and the general election.  
Ideally, redistricting should take place prior to the primary election or after the 
general election or during an off year, in which elections do not take place”); cf. 
Butcher v. Bloom (1966), 420 Pa. 305, 307-308, 216 A.2d 457, 458 (“We 
determined, however, that the imminence of the 1964 general election required 
the utilization of the apportionment plans contained in those acts, notwithstanding 
their invalidity, in order to prevent serious disruption of election processes and 
essential governmental functions”). 
 
Finally, neither R.C. 3501.08, which involves the oath of office for board 
members, nor R.C. 3501.18(A), which provides boards of elections with 
discretionary authority to establish, define, divide, rearrange, and combine 
election precincts and change polling locations, requires a contrary result.  These 
statutes do not impose any duty on the board to make North Olmsted’s 
redistricting effective immediately for the upcoming November 6, 2001 general 
election.  And the city’s additional citation of R.C. 3501.11(A) in its reply brief 
also does not impose this duty on the board in contravention of R.C. 731.06.  As 
the board persuasively argues, the city cites no pertinent authority for its 
suggestion that the board has a constitutional duty to change election precincts in 
the middle of an election cycle.  To do so would challenge the constitutionality of 
R.C. 731.06, which the city does not specifically do. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the board neither abused its discretion nor clearly 
disregarded applicable law by postponing the effective date of its rearranging of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
the election precincts for North Olmsted until after the November 6, 2001 general 
election.  Instead, the board fully complied with the applicable law in so deciding.  
Accordingly, we deny the writ.  By so holding, we also vacate the previously 
issued temporary restraining order. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael R. Gareau, North Olmsted Director of Law, and James M. 
Dubelko, Assistant Director of Law; Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Albert J. 
Lucas, Mark Belleville and Peter A. Rosato, for relator. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
__________________