Title: Thornton v. Salak

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Thornton v. Salak, 112 Ohio St.3d 254, 2006-Ohio-6407.] 
 
 
THORNTON, APPELLANT, v. SALAK ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Thornton v. Salak, 112 Ohio St.3d 254, 2006-Ohio-6407.] 
Annexation proceeding — Am.Sub.S.B. No. 5, 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 621 went 
into effect on date Secretary of State determined that petition for 
referendum contained an insufficient number of valid signatures — 
Effective date of legislation implied by Section 1g, Article II, Ohio 
Constitution. 
(No. 2005-0880 — Submitted March 28, 2006 — Decided December 13, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Fairfield County, 
Nos. 03 CA 63 and 03 CA 64, 2005-Ohio-1612. 
__________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
The Ohio Constitution contains references to three dates when a law passed by the 
General Assembly shall go into effect: 90 days after it shall have been 
filed by the Governor in the office of the Secretary of State, Section 1c, 
Article II, Ohio Constitution; upon approval by a majority of those voting 
upon a referendum, Section 1c, Article II, Ohio Constitution; and, as 
contemplated by Section 1g, Article II, Ohio Constitution and R.C. 
3519.16, upon proof that a referendum petition contains an insufficient 
number of valid signatures to have the matter submitted to the electorate of 
the state of Ohio. 
__________________ 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} The issue accepted for review on this appeal concerns the effective 
date of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 5, 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 621 (“S.B. 5”), legislation 
passed by the General Assembly that changed the method by which property 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
owners can object to an annexation proceeding.  S.B. 5 was the subject of a 
referendum petition filed with the Secretary of State that was certified by him as 
containing an insufficient number of valid signatures to permit the matter to be 
submitted to the electorate for a vote. 
{¶ 2} By way of explanation regarding the complexities of this case, 
litigation arose separately in two different counties, which we have characterized 
as the referendum proceedings, originating in Franklin County, and the 
annexation proceedings, originating in Fairfield County. 
The Referendum Proceedings 
{¶ 3} The facts surrounding this case indicate that on June 12, 2001, the 
General Assembly passed S.B. 5, which amended R.C. 709.07 to specify an 
administrative appeal as the exclusive remedy to challenge a board of county 
commissioners’ approval of an annexation petition.  Prior to the passage of S.B. 5, 
R.C. 709.07 had specified injunctive relief as the exclusive remedy to raise such a 
challenge.  The Governor signed S.B. 5 into law on July 27, 2001, and filed it 
with the Secretary of State the same day, with the expectation that it would 
become effective 90 days after its filing, pursuant to Section 1c, Article II of the 
Ohio Constitution. 
{¶ 4} In this instance, however, on October 25, 2001, a referendum 
committee filed a petition to have the legislation submitted to a statewide 
referendum.  A count of the days following the filing with the Secretary of State 
reveals that October 25, 2001 is the 90th day following filing.  In Heuck v. State 
ex rel. Mack (1933), 127 Ohio St. 247, 187 N.E. 869, we held that the 90-day 
period prescribed in Section 1c, Article II of the Ohio Constitution embraces 90 
full days, such that legislation filed with the Secretary of State is subject to a 
referendum petition at least until midnight of the 90th day.  Nonetheless, all 
parties to this appeal agree that the filing of that referendum petition stayed S.B 5 
from taking effect.  Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary of State separated it 
January Term, 2006 
3 
into part-petitions and sent the part-petitions to the respective county boards of 
elections to determine the validity of the signatures and of the circulators’ 
compensation statements.  Thereafter, the Franklin, Hancock, Muskingum, 
Montgomery, and Trumbull County boards of elections rejected a total of 30 
individual part-petitions either on the basis of a discrepancy regarding the number 
of signatures witnessed or because of an incomplete compensation statement.  On 
December 3, 2001, the referendum committee filed a protest with the Franklin 
County Board of Elections challenging its rejection of the part-petitions.  The next 
day, on December 4, 2001, the Secretary of State notified the referendum 
committee that the petition contained an insufficient number of valid signatures 
but that pursuant to Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 
3519.16, additional signatures could be provided within ten days.  On December 5 
and 6, 2001, the committee also filed other protest actions with the boards of 
elections in each of the other counties. 
{¶ 5} On December 7, 2001, the referendum committee filed a complaint 
for mandamus in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court to compel the 
Secretary of State to determine the extent of the petition’s insufficiency.  The 
committee also sought an injunction to stay the effect of the Secretary of State’s 
December 4 notification letter.  On December 13, 2001, the trial court issued a 
temporary restraining order that purported to stay the effect of the Secretary of 
State’s notification, which had invoked the ten-day statutory period afforded by 
R.C. 3519.16 to submit additional signatures.  Subsequently, on February 20, 
2002, the court granted permanent relief and ordered the Secretary of State to 
determine the extent of the petition’s insufficiency.  Pursuant to that court order, 
the Secretary of State issued another statutory notification on February 21, 2002, 
quantifying the insufficiency of signatures on the petitions and stating that 
additional signatures could be provided within ten days. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 6} In response, on March 4, 2002, the referendum committee filed 
additional signatures with the Secretary of State, but on March 27, 2002, the 
Secretary issued a third and final letter to the committee advising that their 
petition contained an insufficient number of valid signatures for the referendum to 
be submitted to the electors of Ohio. 
The Annexation Proceedings 
{¶ 7} During the pendency of the referendum proceedings, on March 1, 
2002, Robert and Wilma Snider filed a petition with the Fairfield County Board of 
Commissioners to annex 227.296 acres in Violet Township to the village of Canal 
Winchester.  The Sniders owned 126.726 of those acres, and appellant, Alyce 
Lucille Thornton, owned the remaining acreage. 
{¶ 8} The Fairfield County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution 
approving the annexation petition on August 20, 2002.  Thornton, who opposed 
the annexation, filed an administrative appeal (the post-S.B. 5 remedy) on 
September 17, 2002, and also sought an injunction (the pre-S.B. 5 remedy) on 
October 11, 2002, in the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court, against Ken 
Salak, clerk of the Village of Canal Winchester; the village of Canal Winchester; 
the Violet Township Board of Trustees; Robert and Wilma Snider; and Eugene L. 
Hollins, agent for the annexation petitioners (the “Canal Winchester parties”).  
The trial court determined, based on the Secretary of State’s March 27, 2002 
ruling that the referendum petition contained an insufficient number of valid 
signatures, that the referendum petition had no legal effect, and therefore S.B. 5 
became effective 90 days after the Governor filed it in the office of the Secretary 
of State.  The court concluded, therefore, that Thornton’s proper cause of action 
consisted of an administrative appeal to the court; consistent with its holding and 
in connection with its review, the court found that a preponderance of reliable, 
probative, and substantial evidence supported the board’s resolution in favor of 
January Term, 2006 
5 
annexation, and it therefore affirmed that resolution and dismissed Thornton’s 
injunction action as moot. 
{¶ 9} Thornton appealed that decision to the Fairfield County Court of 
Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the effective 
date of S.B. 5 had been stayed until the Secretary of State certified the referendum 
petition as invalid on March 27, 2002.  The appellate court concluded that S.B. 5 
did not become effective until after the Sniders had filed their petition for 
annexation and therefore the trial court should have applied the old law, not S.B. 
5, and it concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing Thornton’s action for an 
injunction. 
{¶ 10} We granted discretionary review of this appeal from the Fairfield 
County Court of Appeals annexation proceeding to address the issue of the 
effective date of legislation that was the subject of a referendum petition that 
contained an insufficient number of valid signatures to be submitted to the 
electorate for a vote. 
{¶ 11} Thornton asserts in our court that the Ohio Constitution provides 
only two effective dates for legislation enacted by the General Assembly: one, 90 
days after the Governor signs the legislation and files it with the Secretary of State 
or, two, if submitted to the electorate pursuant to a referendum, upon approval by 
the electorate.  Therefore, Thornton asserts that because the Secretary of State 
determined that the referendum petition contained an insufficient number of valid 
signatures to submit S.B. 5 to the electorate, the only date it could have become 
effective was October 26, 2001, which is 90 days after the Governor filed it with 
the Secretary of State. 
{¶ 12} The Canal Winchester parties argue that S.B. 5 became effective 
when the Secretary of State advised the referendum committee on March 27, 
2002, that the petition contained an insufficient number of valid signatures for the 
referendum to be submitted to the electors for approval or rejection. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 13} Thus, the central dispute between the parties to this appeal 
concerns when S.B. 5 became effective: 90 days after the Governor filed it in the 
office of the Secretary of State, or upon proof that the referendum petition 
contained an insufficient number of valid signatures to be submitted to the voters 
at the next election. 
{¶ 14} In connection with the issue presented, Section 1c, Article II of the 
Ohio Constitution provides: 
{¶ 15} “No law passed by the general assembly shall go into effect until 
ninety days after it shall have been filed by the governor in the office of the 
secretary of state, except as herein provided.  When a petition, signed by six per 
centum of the electors of the state and verified as herein provided, shall have been 
filed with the secretary of state within ninety days after any law shall have been 
filed by the governor in the office of the secretary of state, * * * no such law, 
section or item shall go into effect until and unless approved by a majority of 
those voting upon the same.” 
{¶ 16} Further, Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides:  
{¶ 17} “The 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.” 
{¶ 18} Of further relevance is R.C. 3519.15, which provides that the 
Secretary of State shall separate the part-petitions by county and transmit them to 
the respective county boards of elections to determine the sufficiency of the 
signatures.  R.C. 3519.16 provides that the Secretary shall then notify the 
referendum committee of the petition’s sufficiency, and, if the petition lacks 
sufficient signatures, the extent of the insufficiency.  If the petition lacks a 
sufficient number of valid signatures, the committee shall have ten additional days 
after the Secretary’s notification to submit additional signatures.  After the county 
January Term, 2006 
7 
boards of elections review the validity and sufficiency of the supplemental 
signatures, the Secretary provides final notification to the committee if the 
petition still lacks a sufficient number of valid signatures. 
{¶ 19} Thus, absent a petition for referendum being filed with the 
Secretary of State, the effective date of new legislation is fixed and certain, 
because Section 1c, Article II of the Ohio Constitution specifies that it shall go 
into effect 90 days after it shall have been filed by the Governor in the office of 
the Secretary of State. 
{¶ 20} As a corollary, when the electorate is asked to vote on a 
referendum on newly enacted legislation, such certainty also exists because, upon 
the filing of a referendum petition, the effective date of new legislation is stayed 
pending the outcome of the referendum vote.  See Section 1c, Article II, Ohio 
Constitution.  If the referendum vote is successful, the new law never goes into 
effect, and the old law remains.  If the referendum fails, the new law becomes 
effective.  In accord with the notion that certainty must exist with respect to law, 
and only one law can be in effect at one time on a given subject, we have 
concluded that when the Secretary of State finally determines that a referendum 
petition contains an insufficient number of valid signatures for the matter to be 
submitted to the electorate for approval or rejection, the constitutional stay ends 
and the new law takes effect at that time. 
{¶ 21} Thornton makes a cogent argument that the Ohio Constitution 
specifies only two dates for legislation to become effective: one, 90 days after the 
Governor files the legislation with the Secretary of State, or, two, when the 
electorate approves the legislation following a referendum vote.  There are two 
reasons, however, why this argument is unpersuasive. 
{¶ 22} First, it does not contemplate Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio 
Constitution, which implies another effective date for legislation, i.e., when the 
presumption in all respects of the sufficiency of the petition and signatures shall 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
be otherwise proved.  Although that section of the Ohio Constitution creates a 
presumption of sufficiency regarding the referendum petition and the signatures 
thereon, the plain language of that section also provides that the presumption may 
be overcome when “it shall be otherwise proved.”  Hence, the framers of the 
Constitution recognized that not all referendum petitions would result in the 
legislation being placed on the ballot for submission to the electorate, but rather, 
that some would fail upon proof of the petition’s insufficiency.  Such proof 
occurred in this case on March 27, 2002, when the Secretary of State finally 
certified that the petition contained an insufficient number of valid signatures and 
would therefore not be placed on the ballot.  However, Section 1c, Article II of 
the Ohio Constitution specifically provides that when a referendum petition shall 
have been filed with the Secretary of State, no such law “shall go into effect until 
and unless approved by a majority of those voting on the same.”  Thus, we know 
that the Ohio Constitution precluded S.B. 5 from becoming effective upon the 
filing of the referendum petition.  Therefore, when the referendum proceedings 
ended on March 27, 2002, the constitutional postponement of S.B. 5’s effective 
date also ended, because there was nothing to be submitted to the electorate, and, 
thus, the legislation became effective at that time. 
{¶ 23} Second, if taken to its logical conclusion, Thornton’s analysis 
eliminates certainty as to the effective date of legislation and creates confusion 
with respect to the situation presented by the facts in this case because it forces a 
litigant to choose between following the old law or the new law, pending the 
Secretary of State’s review of the referendum petition.  Here, because of this 
uncertainty, Thornton filed two causes of action: the first, an injunction, pursuant 
to the old law, and the second, an administrative appeal, pursuant to the new law.  
But litigants should not be forced into this Hobson’s choice because the framers 
of the Constitution have contemplated a third date to fill the void presented by 
January Term, 2006 
9 
cases like this one.  Accordingly, we reject these lines of analysis offered by 
Thornton. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 24} The Ohio Constitution contains references to three dates when a 
law passed by the General Assembly shall go into effect: 90 days after it shall 
have been filed by the Governor in the office of the Secretary of State, Section 1c, 
Article II, Ohio Constitution; upon approval by a majority of those voting upon a 
referendum, Section 1c, Article II, Ohio Constitution; and, as contemplated by 
Section 1g, Article II, Ohio Constitution and R.C. 3519.16, upon proof that a 
referendum petition contains an insufficient number of valid signatures to have 
the matter submitted to the electorate of the state of Ohio. 
{¶ 25} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Fairfield County Court 
of Appeals and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion. 
Judgment affirmed  
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
MCMONAGLE, J., dissents. 
 
CHRISTINE T. MCMONAGLE, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for 
RESNICK, J. 
__________________ 
 
MCMONAGLE, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 26} Respectfully, I dissent from the decision of the majority, which 
holds that Am.Sub.S.B. 5, 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 621 (“S.B.5”) became effective 
March 27, 2002, when the Secretary of State declared the petitions invalid. 
{¶ 27} The majority holds that the words of Section 1g, Article II, Ohio 
Constitution, and R.C. 3519.16 establish the proposition that a law against which 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
an invalid referendum petition is lodged becomes effective upon the date the 
Secretary of State declares the petitions invalid.  This position is not supported by 
the words of the Constitution or the statute or any reasonable interpretation of 
those words.  It is a fiction constructed to resolve what the majority believes to be 
an uncertainty in the law.  I would hold that this uncertainty, if in need of 
resolution at all, is best resolved by the legislature or constitutional amendment; 
however, its resolution by the majority has no roots in the language of the 
Constitution. 
{¶ 28} The majority states that there are three provisions in the Ohio 
Constitution that establish the date upon which a law passed by the General 
Assembly shall go into effect:1   
{¶ 29} 1.  Section 1c, Article II. This section provides that a law is 
effective 90 days after the law shall have been filed by the Governor in the office 
of the Secretary of State. 
{¶ 30} 2.  Section 1c, Article II. This section provides that a law, in the 
case of referendum, is effective upon approval by a majority of the electorate at 
the next succeeding regular or general election. 
{¶ 31} 3.  Section 1g, Article II and R.C. 3519.16.  Section 1g, Article II 
provides that a referendum petition “shall be presumed to be in all respects 
sufficient, unless not less than forty days before the election, it shall be otherwise 
proved.”  R.C. 3519.16 provides the method of protest against findings of validity 
or invalidity of a referendum petition by a board of elections.  It also provides that 
                                          
 
1.  The majority does not mention a fourth provision, Section 1d, Article II, Ohio Constitution, 
which provides that tax levies, appropriations for current expenses, and emergency laws necessary 
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety shall go into immediate effect 
and that such laws are not subject to referendum.   
January Term, 2006 
11 
the Secretary of State record and announce the decision concerning the validity of 
the petitions. 
{¶ 32} The majority argues that Section 1g, Article II, read in concert with 
R.C. 3519.16, creates a third (or fourth, see fn. 1) potentially effective date for a 
law passed by the legislature where a referendum petition is ultimately ruled 
invalid.  I nowhere see either in the words themselves, or in their implications, the 
establishment of an effective date “upon proof that a referendum petition contains 
an insufficient number of signatures,” as urged by the majority.  I read the 
language in Section 1g, Article II that a referendum petition is presumed 
sufficient “unless * * * otherwise proved” to mean exactly what it says, i.e., if 
there is no protest to the petition, or if the protest is overruled, the issue will be 
submitted to the voters upon the ballot.  R.C. 3519.22, which states that “[n]o 
measure submitted to the electors and receiving an affirmative majority of the 
votes cast on the measure shall be held ineffective or void on account of the 
insufficiency of the petitions by which such submission was procured,” supports 
this interpretation of Section 1g, Article II. 
{¶ 33} The majority contends that without implying this third (or fourth) 
effective date, there will be great uncertainty in the law, and suggests that no one 
will know what law applies during the period of time the petitions are being 
scrutinized.  To ameliorate this uncertainty, it urges an effective date which 
corresponds with the date the Secretary of State announces that the petitions are 
invalid and states that no more extensions to conform the petitions are permitted. 
{¶ 34} This holding of the majority gives power to an invalid petition; a 
wholly invalid petition would modify the effective date of legislation simply by 
being presented for validation.  I think the better reasoning is that an invalid 
petition is a nullity and cannot and should not affect anything. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
{¶ 35} While the majority’s intent to eliminate a potential uncertainty in 
the law is laudatory and perhaps even desirable, I cannot find the foundation for 
this in the words of the Constitution. 
{¶ 36} In sum, I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause, 
holding that an invalid referendum petition is a nullity, and that the effective date 
of legislation, if it is a law subject to the possibility of referendum, is 90 days after 
the Governor files it with the Secretary of State, or, if a law not subject to 
referendum, then immediately upon its passage, as specifically provided in the 
Ohio Constitution. 
__________________ 
 
Law Offices of Donald J. McTigue, Donald J. McTigue, Robert A. 
Beattey, Jr., and Mark A. McGinnis, for appellant. 
 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., O. Judson Scheaf III, Scott A. Campbell, and 
Michele L. Noble; and Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., and 
Michael L. Close, for appellees Ken Salak, Eugene L. Hollins, village of Canal 
Winchester, Robert J. Snider, and Wilma J. Snider. 
 
Moots, Carter & Hogan, L.P.A., and Wanda L. Carter, for appellee Violet 
Township Board of Trustees. 
______________________