Case Title: State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2015-Ohio-3761

Docket Number: 2015-1422

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-
3761.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-3761 
THE STATE EX REL. THE CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN v. MAHONING COUNTY BOARD 
OF ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Youngstown v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3761.] 
Elections—Mandamus sought to compel board of elections and secretary of state 
to certify a proposed charter amendment for the ballot—Boards of 
elections do not have authority to decide the legality or constitutionality of 
a ballot measure’s substantive terms—Writ granted against board of 
elections and its members but not against secretary of state. 
(No. 2015-1422—Submitted September 15, 2015—Decided September 17, 2015.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relator, the city of Youngstown, 
seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, the Mahoning County Board of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Elections, its board members David Betras, Mark Munroe, Robert Wasko, and 
Tracey Winbush, and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, to certify a proposed 
charter amendment to appear on the November ballot.  We grant the writ against 
the board of elections and its members but not against Husted. 
Background 
{¶ 2} The “Community Bill of Rights” is a proposed amendment to the 
city charter of Youngstown.  The measure would, among other things, make it 
unlawful to engage in the extraction of oil and gas in the city of Youngstown 
through the use of hydrofracturing, Section 122-3(A); declare void any federal or 
state license that would violate the charter, Section 122-3(D); make violations a 
first-degree misdemeanor, Section 122-3(E); and create a civil cause of action for 
damages to be brought “in the name of the natural community or ecosystems,” 
Section 122-3(F). 
{¶ 3} On August 3, 2015, proponents of the Community Bill of Rights 
presented the amendment to the Youngstown City Council.  The petitions had 
sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.  On August 24, 2015, the 
Youngstown City Council passed ordinance No. 15-283, directing that the 
proposal be sent to the Mahoning County Board of Elections for placement on the 
November ballot. 
{¶ 4} The board considered the charter amendment at its meeting on 
August 26, 2015.  During that discussion, board members expressed the opinion 
that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional.  Member Betras referred to 
this court’s decision in State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., ___ Ohio 
St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-485, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 34, and announced to the other 
members, “I will not allow the people of the City of Youngstown to vote on a 
measure that is clearly and unambiguous[ly] unconstitutional.”  Chairman Munroe 
agreed that “in light of the Beck Energy case, * * * [the amendment is] 
unenforceable, and it conflicts with the Ohio Constitution.”  Member Winbush 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
stated that the amendment was “unenforceable because state law supersedes local 
law.” 
{¶ 5} Member Betras made a motion that the board “not certify the 
Community Bill of Rights to the ballot because it’s an unconstitutional law.”  The 
motion carried by a four-to-zero vote. 
Procedural history 
{¶ 6} On August 28, 2015, the city of Youngstown commenced this 
mandamus action against the board of elections, its individual members, and 
Secretary of State Husted.  The parties filed evidence and briefs in accordance 
with the court’s scheduling order.  In addition, the court received amicus briefs in 
support of the board of elections from (1) the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 
Affiliated Construction Trades of Ohio, and the American Petroleum Institute, (2) 
the Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber, and (3) the Ohio Oil and Gas 
Association, the Ohio Gas Association, and Local Unions. 
{¶ 7} On September 2, 2015, the city filed an unopposed motion to correct 
a clerical error in the complaint. We grant the motion. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 8} A board of elections has statutory authority to “[r]eview, examine, 
and certify the sufficiency and validity of petitions.”  R.C. 3501.11(K).  A board 
of elections has greater discretion to inquire into the sufficiency of a proposed 
ballot measure than municipal officials do.  State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. 
Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437, 2005-Ohio-5009, 835 N.E.2d 1222, at ¶ 30.  Unlike 
municipal officials, the boards of elections have statutory authority to conduct 
quasi-judicial protest hearings.  Id.; R.C. 3501.39(A)(2); State ex rel. Ebersole v. 
Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487, 2014-Ohio-4077, 20 N.E.3d 
678, ¶ 48. 
{¶ 9} R.C. 3501.11(K) empowers a board of elections to determine 
whether a ballot measure falls within the scope of the constitutional power of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
referendum or initiative.  For example, the right of referendum does not exist with 
respect to a measure approved by a city council acting in an administrative, rather 
than legislative, capacity.  Buckeye Comm. Hope Found. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 82 
Ohio St.3d 539, 697 N.E.2d 181 (1998), paragraph two of the syllabus.  Because a 
referendum on an administrative matter is a legal nullity, boards of elections have 
not only discretion but an affirmative duty to keep such items off the ballot.  State 
ex rel. Ebersole, ¶ 30.  It necessarily follows that the boards of elections have 
discretion to determine which actions are administrative and which are legislative. 
{¶ 10} Likewise, a board of elections has discretion to determine whether 
a proposed ballot measure satisfies statutory prerequisites to be a ballot measure.  
State ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 
1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 39, 50-55 (petition to repeal a levy 
exceeded statutory authority, which authorized ballot measures only to decrease 
levies). 
{¶ 11} The boards of elections, however, do not have authority to sit as 
arbiters of the legality or constitutionality of a ballot measure’s substantive terms.  
An unconstitutional amendment may be a proper item for referendum or initiative.  
Such an amendment becomes void and unenforceable only when declared 
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction.  Any other conclusion 
would authorize a board of elections to adjudicate a constitutional question and 
require this court to affirm its decision even if the court disagreed with the board’s 
conclusion on the underlying constitutional question, so long as the board had not 
abused its discretion. 
{¶ 12} The record plainly demonstrates that the board rejected ordinance 
No. 15-283 solely because it considered the measure to be unconstitutional in its 
effects.  In making that determination, the board exceeded its statutory authority 
and therefore abused its discretion. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
{¶ 13} Husted, on the other hand, has not taken any action with respect to 
the proposed amendment.  Any relief against him would therefore be premature, 
at best. 
Defective affidavit 
{¶ 14} The affidavit attached to the complaint attested that the factual 
allegations were true “to the best of [the affiant’s] knowledge, information, and 
belief.”  Such an affidavit does not comport with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B).  State ex 
rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 116 Ohio St.3d 131, 2007-Ohio-5699, 
876 N.E.2d 953, ¶ 15-16.  However, when made aware of the defect, relator 
submitted a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and attached to the 
amended complaint a new, proper affidavit.  Because relator is entitled to an 
opportunity to cure the defect, and because permitting the amendment will case 
no delay or prejudice, we grant the motion.  State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 
Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-5334, 776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 24-26 (permitting corrected 
affidavits under Civ.R. 15(A)). 
Motions granted, 
and writ granted in part 
and denied in part. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Martin S. Hume, Youngstown Law Director, and Mark D’Apolito, 
Assistant Law Director, for relator. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Lisa Babish Forbes, Kyle S. 
Baird, Aaron M. Williams, and John K. Keller, for respondents the Mahoning 
County Board of Elections and its members. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Nicole M. Koppitch and Tiffany 
L. Carwile, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Ohio Secretary of State 
Jon Husted. 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., L. Bradfield Hughes, Kathleen 
M. Trafford, and Kevin J. Kelley, urging denial of the writ for amici curiae the 
Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Affiliated Construction Trades of Ohio, and the 
American Petroleum Institute. 
Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, L.P.A., Randolph L. Snow, James 
M. Wherley Jr., and Whitney L. Willits, urging denial of the writ for amici curiae 
the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, the Ohio Gas Association, and 17 Local 
Unions. 
Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, L.P.A., Randolph L. Snow, James 
M. Wherley Jr., and Whitney L. Willits, urging denial of the writ for amicus 
curiae Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber. 
_________________