Case Title: State ex rel. Lewis v. Rolston

Citation: 2007-Ohio-5139

Docket Number: 20071639

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Lewis v. Rolston, 115 Ohio St.3d 293, 2007-Ohio-5139.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. LEWIS v. ROLSTON, FISCAL OFFICER, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Lewis v. Rolston, 115 Ohio St.3d 293, 2007-Ohio-5139.] 
Election law — Mandamus — R.C. 731.32 — Petitioner, not fiscal officer, must 
attest to the accuracy of a proposed ordinance — Writ denied. 
(No. 2007-1639 ─ Submitted September 20, 2007 ─ Decided October 1, 2007.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel a 
village fiscal officer to certify the sufficiency and validity of an initiative petition 
to the Clinton County Board of Elections for placement of the proposed ordinance 
on the November 6, 2007 election ballot.  Because a fiscal officer has no duty to 
do so when a relator does not file a precirculation certified copy of the proposed 
ordinance, we deny the writ. 
{¶ 2} Relator, William C. Lewis, is an elector, resident, and taxpayer of 
the village of Sabina.  Lewis is part of a committee formed in May 2007 to 
propose an ordinance.  The proposed ordinance authorizes the mayor, within five 
days of election or appointment, to assume the duties of village administrator, and 
if the mayor decides to do so, to receive additional compensation. 
{¶ 3} On May 17, 2007, Lewis delivered copies of the initiative petition 
proposing the ordinance to respondent Sabina Village Fiscal Officer Jodi Rolston.  
None of the copies was verified, attested to, or certified by Lewis or any other 
proponent of the ordinance.  At Lewis’s request, the village fiscal officer stamped 
on each copy, “Certified Copy Received May 17, 2007 at 3:27 p.m.” and 
handwrote on each copy, “The undersigned hereby attests that the aforementioned 
original proposed Ordinance is a Certified copy filed in this office on May 17, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
2007.”  The fiscal officer signed the attestation.  Nevertheless, the fiscal officer 
neither prepared the proposed ordinance nor verified it. 
{¶ 4} On July 12, 2007, Lewis filed an initiative petition with the village 
fiscal officer that contained 302 signatures.  The petitioners requested placement 
of the proposed ordinance, titled “An ordinance Giving the Option to the Mayor 
to Act as Village Administrator,” on the November 6, 2007 general election 
ballot. 
{¶ 5} At the mayor’s request, the village solicitor prepared an opinion on 
the legality of the proposed ordinance.  The village solicitor advised the fiscal 
officer not to submit the petition to the board of elections, concluding that the 
proposed ordinance “is illegal, contrary to Ohio law, and therefore would be 
void.”    According to the village solicitor, if the ordinance were enacted, it would 
violate several Revised Code provisions, including R.C. 735.271, 705.25, and 
731.13.  The village solicitor emphasized that he was “not taking any position on 
the validity of the initiative petition per se, nor its signatures, but simply as to the 
legality of the proposed ordinance.” 
{¶ 6} Based on the village solicitor’s opinion, the fiscal officer refused to 
certify the petition and the proposed ordinance to the Clinton County Board of 
Elections. 
{¶ 7} At the village council’s regular meeting on July 26, Lewis 
requested that the village solicitor institute a mandamus action to compel the 
fiscal officer to certify the petition and the ordinance to the board of elections.  At 
the council meeting, the village solicitor stated that he had advised the fiscal 
officer not to certify the petition and ordinance to the board of elections because 
the proposed ordinance is illegal, and he rejected Lewis’s request to bring a 
mandamus action to compel the fiscal officer to certify it to the board of elections. 
{¶ 8} On August 31, 2006, Lewis filed this expedited election action for 
a writ of mandamus to compel the fiscal officer to certify the sufficiency and 
January Term, 2007 
3 
validity of the initiative petition to the Clinton County Board of Elections for 
placement on the November 6, 2007 election ballot.  Lewis also names the village 
council as a respondent and requests an award of attorney fees.  Respondents 
submitted an answer, and the parties filed evidence and briefs. 
{¶ 9} This cause is now before us for consideration of the merits. 
Mandamus 
{¶ 10} To be entitled to the writ, Lewis must establish a clear legal right 
to have the initiative petition and a certified copy of the proposed ordinance 
transmitted to the board of elections, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part 
of the fiscal officer to transmit them, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Marsalek v. S. Euclid City Council, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 163, 2006-Ohio-4973, 855 N.E.2d 811, ¶ 8.  Because of the proximity of the 
November 6, 2007 election, Lewis has established that he lacks an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Commt. for the Charter 
Amendment, City Trash Collection, v. Westlake, 97 Ohio St.3d 100, 2002-Ohio-
5302, 776 N.E.2d 1041, ¶ 21. 
R.C. 731.32 
{¶ 11} Respondents contend that Lewis cannot establish a clear legal right 
to the requested relief or a clear legal duty on the part of the fiscal officer to 
provide it, because Lewis failed to comply with R.C. 731.32.  “R.C. 731.32 does 
not expressly permit substantial compliance, so it requires strict compliance.”  
State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295, 2003-Ohio-3629, 791 N.E.2d 
452, ¶ 17.  R.C. 731.32 provides: 
{¶ 12} “Whoever seeks to propose an ordinance or measure in a municipal 
corporation by initiative petition * * * shall, before circulating such petition, file a 
certified copy of the proposed ordinance or measure with the city auditor or the 
village clerk.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 13} Villages are authorized to combine the duties of the clerk and the 
treasurer into one appointed office – the village fiscal officer.  R.C. 733.262.  
Apparently, Sabina has exercised this authority, and the fiscal officer now 
performs the duties formerly performed by the clerk and the treasurer.  Therefore, 
under R.C. 731.32, Lewis had to file a certified copy of his proposed ordinance 
with the fiscal officer. 
{¶ 14} Certification requires an attestation: 
{¶ 15} “As used in this section, ‘certified copy’ means a copy containing a 
written statement attesting that it is a true and exact reproduction of the original 
proposed ordinance or measure * * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  R.C. 731.32. 
{¶ 16} “Attest” means “to certify to the verity of a copy of a public 
document formally by signature,” and an attached copy of a document is “one 
which has been examined and compared with the original, with a certificate or 
memorandum of its correctness, signed by the persons who have examined it.”  
(Emphasis added.)  Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990) 127-128; see, also, 
State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 
N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 22. 
{¶ 17} Lewis did not comply with R.C. 731.32.  He did not file a certified 
copy of the proposed ordinance with a written statement “attesting that it is a true 
and exact reproduction of the original proposed ordinance.”  Id.  Instead, he filed 
a copy of the entire initiative petition with the fiscal officer’s certification on the 
petition. 
{¶ 18} Although at Lewis’s request, the fiscal officer signed a handwritten 
statement on the petition that she “hereby attests that the aforementioned original 
proposed ordinance is a certified copy filed in this office on May 17, 2007,” she 
did not verify the proposed ordinance itself or prepare it.  Cf. State ex rel. Shaw v. 
Lynch (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 174, 175, 580 N.E.2d 1068 (certification is 
January Term, 2007 
5 
substantially similar to verification for purposes of verification requirement 
contained in former R.C. 731.32). 
{¶ 19} More important, the fiscal officer did not attest that the copy of the 
proposed ordinance attached to the initiative petition was a “true and exact 
reproduction of the original proposed ordinance or measure,” as required by R.C. 
731.32.  There is also no evidence that she actually examined the copy of the 
proposed ordinance and compared it with the original for purposes of a proper 
attestation.  Instead, the evidence establishes that the fiscal officer simply wrote 
“certification” language that Lewis told her to write on the petition.  As 
respondents note, for initiative petitions, the petitioners themselves are more 
appropriate persons to attest to the accuracy of their proposed ordinance or other 
measure. 
{¶ 20} “The purpose of the R.C. 731.32 precirculation certified-copy 
requirement for a proposed * * * ordinance is to afford interested citizens an 
opportunity to examine the proposed ordinance that is the subject of the initiative 
petition * * *.”  Steele, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 
31.  This purpose is not advanced when someone with no knowledge of the 
proposed ordinance makes a purported certification of a copy of an initiative 
petition containing the proposed ordinance without actually examining it for 
accuracy.  Under these circumstances, interested citizens could be uncertain about 
the validity of a proposed ordinance contained in the precirculation copy of the 
petition when it is not certified by a proponent of the proposed ordinance and does 
not contain a written statement attesting that it is a true and exact reproduction of 
the original proposed ordinance. 
{¶ 21} Therefore, Lewis and the petitioners did not strictly comply with 
R.C. 731.32.  Although the fiscal officer did not base her initial refusal to certify 
the initiative petition to the board of elections on Lewis’s noncompliance with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
R.C. 731.32, she is not thereby estopped from raising this violation.  Id. at ¶ 19; 
Steele, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 37-38. 
Village Council 
{¶ 22} Although Lewis also names the village council as a respondent, he 
does not request any relief against it.  Moreover, the village council has no duty 
under R.C. 731.28 to transmit or certify initiative petitions to the board of 
elections.  We cannot create the legal duty enforceable in mandamus.  State ex rel. 
Boccuzzi v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 112 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-Ohio-323, 
860 N.E.2d 749, ¶ 18. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Because Lewis has not established a clear legal right to the 
requested extraordinary relief in mandamus or a clear legal duty on the part of the 
fiscal officer or the village council to certify the initiative petition to the board of 
elections, we deny the writ. This holding renders moot respondents’ remaining 
arguments, i.e., laches, substantive illegality of the proposed ordinance, failure to 
comply with R.C. 731.35, and that the right of initiative does not extend to 
resolutions.  State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 
126, 2007-Ohio-4588, 873 N.E.2d 1251, ¶ 35.  We also deny Lewis’s request for 
an award of attorney fees. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 24} I agree with the majority’s conclusion with respect to the village 
council; however, I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the writ as to 
the village’s fiscal officer.  Because I believe that the relator, William C. Lewis, 
January Term, 2007 
7 
complied with R.C. 731.32 when he filed a copy of the entire initiative petition 
with the village fiscal officer’s certification, I would grant the writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 25} The majority claims that Lewis himself was required to certify the 
copy of the proposed ordinance.  This implication injects a requirement into the 
process that does not appear in the statute, because R.C. 731.32 does not require 
the person circulating the petition to also certify it.  The statute merely requires a 
copy, verified as true and accurate, to be filed with the village clerk.  This 
conclusion upholds precedent: we must “liberally construe municipal initiative 
provisions to permit the exercise of the power of initiative.”  State ex rel. N. Main 
St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437, 2005-Ohio-5009, 835 N.E.2d 1222, ¶ 
47. 
{¶ 26} The majority also concludes that the fiscal officer did not verify 
the proposed ordinance because she did not prepare it and because there is no 
evidence that she actually compared the copy with the original.  I believe the 
majority makes a leap in judgment with such an assumption.  The fiscal officer’s 
handwritten statement was that she “hereby attests that the aforementioned 
original proposed Ordinance is a Certified copy filed in this office on May 17, 
2007.”  It is irrelevant that no additional evidence proves that the fiscal officer 
examined or compared the documents, especially here, where a quick review 
could establish that the copy matched the original document, because the copy 
was the entire initiative petition. 
{¶ 27} I believe there was strict statutory compliance and that no part of 
the statute was violated.  The majority requires more than R.C. 731.32 mandates, 
and the unsuspecting citizen will not be alerted to an additional requirement.  The 
majority discredits the fiscal officer’s certification because there is “no evidence” 
that she actually examined the copy.  However, there is no statutory mechanism to 
take evidence on this issue.  I believe we should presume that she did her job 
when she attested to the certified copy.  Her written statement attesting and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
verifying the document is sufficient evidence.  There is no legal requirement that 
one must bring in a third party to prove that a county official is telling the truth by 
such attestation.  Her certification is sufficient for “interested citizens” to be 
confident of the ordinance’s validity. 
{¶ 28} Finally, I believe that the underlying reason for the village’s 
refusal to certify the petition was the solicitor’s opinion that the proposed 
ordinance was illegal.  This suspected illegality does not bar the fiscal officer 
from certifying the initiative.  “Any claim alleging the * * * illegality of the 
substance of the proposed ordinance, or actions to be taken pursuant to the 
ordinance when enacted are premature before its approval by the electorate.”  
State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 716 N.E.2d 1114. 
{¶ 29} Consequently, I agree with the decision denying the writ with 
respect to the village council and with the denial of attorney fees.  I respectfully 
dissent from the decision to deny the writ as to the village’s fiscal officer. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Susan Zurface Daniels, for relator. 
 
Jon C. Hapner, Sabina Law Director, for respondents. 
______________________