Title: State ex rel. Fritz v. Trumbull County Board of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Fritz v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1828.] 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-1828 
THE STATE EX REL. FRITZ ET AL. v. TRUMBULL 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. Fritz v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections,  
Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-1828.] 
Prohibition and Mandamus—Elections—Action to prevent a special recall election 
from being held—R.C. 731.17(B)—The term “majority vote,” at least when 
it is applied to council action that is taken by motion, means at least a 
majority vote of the council members present at a meeting—A board of 
elections has a legal duty to reject a measure that does not comply with 
ballot-access requirements and to prohibit its placement on a ballot—Writ 
of prohibition denied—Writ of mandamus granted. 
(No. 2021-0641—Submitted May 27, 2021—Decided May 27, 2021.) 
IN PROHIBITION and MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relators A. Joseph Fritz, Kathleen M. 
King, and Sandra Breymaier seek a writ of prohibition to prevent respondents, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Trumbull County Board of Elections and its members, Mark Alberini, Arno Hill, 
Ronald Knight, and Diana Marchese (collectively, “the board”), from holding a 
June 1, 2021 special recall election on a measure to remove Breymaier from the 
city council of Newton Falls.  Relators also request a writ of mandamus ordering 
the board to remove the recall election from the ballot. 
{¶ 2} Relators are not entitled to a writ of prohibition because the board did 
not exercise quasi-judicial authority.  But we grant relators a writ of mandamus 
because the Newton Falls city council has not duly passed a motion to set the recall 
election for June 1. 
I.  Background 
{¶ 3} Under the Newton Falls Charter, any member of the city council may 
be removed by a recall vote of the city’s electors.  Newton Falls Charter, Article 
VII, Section 4.  The recall process begins with a petition demanding removal of the 
city council member.  To be valid, the petition must contain a sufficient number of 
signatures of Newton Falls electors and be filed with the city clerk.  Id.  If the city 
clerk finds the petition sufficient, she must certify the petition to the council and 
deliver a copy of the certificate to the council member whose removal is sought.  
Id.  If the council member does not resign within seven days after the clerk’s 
delivery of the certificate, the council “shall thereupon fix a day for holding a recall 
election, not more than ninety (90) days after the date of such delivery.”  Id. 
{¶ 4} On or about April 8, 2021, a group of Newton Falls electors presented 
to King, as clerk of the city council, a petition to recall Breymaier, the council 
member who represents Newton Falls’s fourth ward.  At that time, the city council 
consisted of five members: Adam Zimmerman, John Baryak, Tesa Spletzer, Tarry 
Alberini, and Breymaier.  King certified the petition as sufficient and delivered a 
copy of the certification to Breymaier.  Breymaier chose not to resign from her 
office.  Accordingly, under the terms of the Newton Falls Charter, the council must 
January Term, 2021 
3 
 
call for a recall election to be held by the voters in Newton Falls’s fourth ward by 
July 7, 2021. 
{¶ 5} On May 10, 2021, the city council convened a general meeting.  At 
the time of the May 10 meeting, there were only four city council members present 
because Alberini had resigned a week earlier.  A motion to schedule a special 
election for June 1, 2021, on Breymaier’s recall was on the agenda.  The council 
voted 2-1 in favor of the motion to set the recall-election date as June 1; Breymaier 
abstained due to a conflict of interest.  Mayor Kenneth Kline, the presiding member 
of the council, declared that the motion had passed.1     
{¶ 6} Fritz, the Newton Falls law director, disagreed with Mayor Kline’s 
declaration.  Fritz informed King that the motion had failed because it had not 
received a majority vote of the council members present at the meeting.  King 
therefore did not deliver or transmit the motion to the board.  However, Mayor 
Kline sent a letter to the board on May 13, informing it that the council had passed 
the motion and requesting that the board schedule an election on Breymaier’s recall 
for June 1. 
{¶ 7} Upon learning of Mayor Kline’s letter to the board, Fritz sent a written 
protest to legal counsel for the board that same day, objecting to the recall election 
on the basis that the council had not passed the motion by a majority vote.  On May 
14, the board convened a special session and voted to set the recall election to occur 
on June 1, with early voting beginning on May 18.  The board did not provide notice 
to Fritz that it would be considering his protest on that day, nor did the board hold 
a formal hearing on Fritz’s protest. 
{¶ 8} Relators commenced this action on May 17, seeking writs of 
prohibition and mandamus to prevent the board from holding the recall election and 
ordering the board to remove the recall measure from the June 1 ballot.  We set an 
                                                 
1. The mayor of Newton Falls is the presiding member of the council, but the mayor may vote only 
in the event of a tie.  Newton Falls Charter, Article II, Section 3.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
expedited schedule for the parties to submit evidence and file briefs.  __ Ohio St.3d 
__, 2021-Ohio-1704, __ N.E.3d __.  The matter is fully briefed and ripe for 
decision. 
II.  Analysis 
A.  Writ of Prohibition 
{¶ 9} To obtain a writ of prohibition, relators must prove that the board 
exercised quasi-judicial power, that it lacked the authority to do so, and that relators 
lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See State ex rel. Keith 
v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections, 159 Ohio St.3d 128, 2019-Ohio-4766, 149 
N.E.3d 449, ¶ 5.  Quasi-judicial power denotes the authority to hear and determine 
controversies “that require a hearing resembling a judicial trial.”  State ex rel. 
Wright v. Ohio Bur. Of Motor Vehicles, 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908 
(1999); see also State ex rel. Miller v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, __ Ohio St.3d 
__, 2021-Ohio-831, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 21-27. 
{¶ 10} The board did not exercise quasi-judicial power when it decided, 
over Fritz’s protest, to set the recall election for June 1.  Relators cite R.C. 
3501.39(A) for the proposition that the board was required to conduct a quasi-
judicial hearing on Fritz’s protest.  But that statute applies to protests of “any 
petition described in” R.C. 3501.38, which are declarations of candidacy, 
nominating petitions, or other petitions presented to a board of elections for the 
purpose of becoming a candidate or for the holding of an election on any issue.  But 
Fritz was not protesting a petition; he was protesting the validity of the city 
council’s May 10 vote to set a recall election for Breymaier’s council seat on June 
1.  Accordingly, the board was not required to hold a hearing under R.C. 
3501.39(A).  And extraordinary relief in prohibition is not available when there is 
no statute or other law requiring a board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial 
hearing on a protest.  State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 90 
Ohio St.3d 238, 242, 736 N.E.2d 893 (2000); see also State ex rel. Cornerstone 
January Term, 2021 
5 
 
Developers, Ltd. v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections, 145 Ohio St.3d 290, 2016-Ohio-
313, 49 N.E.3d 273, ¶ 18 (this court declined to issue a writ of prohibition when the 
board of elections was not required to conduct a hearing).  We therefore deny a writ 
of prohibition. 
B.  Writ of Mandamus 
{¶ 11} Relators also ask for a writ of mandamus ordering the board to 
remove the recall measure from the June 1 ballot.  To be entitled to a writ of 
mandamus, relators must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) a clear 
legal right to have the board remove the recall measure from the ballot, (2) a clear 
legal duty on the part of the board to do so, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy 
in the ordinary course of law.  See State ex rel. Nauth v. Dirham, 161 Ohio St.3d 
365, 2020-Ohio-4208, 163 N.E.3d 526, ¶ 11.  Because of the proximity of the 
election scheduled for June 1, relators lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law.  See State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
151 Ohio St.3d 134, 2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 12} As to the first two elements, relators must show that the board 
engaged in fraud, corruption, an abuse of discretion, or a clear disregard of 
applicable law.  State ex rel. N. Olmsted v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio 
St.3d 529, 532, 757 N.E.2d 314 (2001).  In this case, the issue before us is whether 
the board clearly disregarded applicable law in deciding to conduct the special 
recall election on June 1.  Extraordinary relief in mandamus is appropriate to keep 
a measure from the ballot when there is a “failure to comply with statutory ballot-
access requirements.”  Cornerstone Developers at ¶ 22. 
{¶ 13} When a “sufficient” recall petition is filed with the city clerk and the 
officer whose removal is sought does not resign, the Newton Falls Charter requires 
the council to act affirmatively to set the date of the recall election.  Specifically, 
Article VII, Section 4 states that council “shall” fix the date for a recall election to 
occur within 90 days of the date the recall petition was delivered to the officer 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
sought to be removed.  The question in this case is whether a majority of the council 
voted to set the recall election to take place on June 1. 
{¶ 14} Article III, Section 9 of the Newton Falls Charter generally provides 
that the council shall exercise its powers “by a majority vote.”  Relators argue that 
a “majority vote” means a majority of the council members who are present at the 
meeting.  Accordingly, relators contend that the May 10 vote to approve the June 1 
recall election was not a majority vote because only two of the four council 
members voted in favor of the motion.  The board disagrees, arguing that “a 
majority vote” under the Newton Falls Charter means a majority of the council 
members who voted on the measure. 
{¶ 15} Relators are correct.  R.C. 731.17(B) provides: “Action by the 
legislative authority, not required by law to be by ordinance or resolution, may be 
taken by motion approved by at least a majority vote of the members present at the 
meeting when the action is taken.”  (Emphasis added.)  Though Breymaier 
abstained from voting on the motion, she was present at the May 10 meeting and is 
therefore counted as part of the total number for purposes of calculating a majority.  
See State ex rel. Keyes v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 123 Ohio St.3d 29, 
2009-Ohio-4052, 913 N.E.2d 972, ¶ 25.  So under R.C. 731.17(B), three 
affirmative votes were required to pass the motion.  Keyes at ¶ 18 (a “majority” 
always refers to more than half of a defined set). 
{¶ 16} R.C. 731.17(B) applies here because the Newton Falls Charter and 
codified ordinances incorporate it.  Article I, Section 2 of the Newton Falls Charter 
provides that the city shall have “all powers of local self-government * * * granted 
to municipalities by the Constitution and laws of Ohio” and that such powers “shall 
be exercised in the manner prescribed by this Charter, or if not prescribed herein, 
by ordinance of the Council.”  In turn, the codified ordinances of Newton Falls 
specify that all council meetings “shall be conducted in accordance with the City 
Charter, the applicable laws of the State of Ohio, and, unless otherwise herein 
January Term, 2021 
7 
 
specified, the rules and procedures outlined in ‘Robert’s Rules of Order.’ ”  Newton 
Falls Codified Ordinance 121.03(a)(1).  When read together, these provisions 
dictate that R.C. 731.17(B) applies to votes taken by the Newton Falls council. 
{¶ 17} This court construes municipal charters to give effect to all separate 
provisions and, whenever possible, to harmonize them with statutory provisions.  
See, e.g., State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 
462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 31; State ex rel. Commt. for the Proposed 
Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance No. 146-02, W. End Blight Designation v. 
Lakewood, 100 Ohio St.3d 252, 2003-Ohio-5771, 798 N.E.2d 362, ¶ 20; State ex 
rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney, 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 477, 764 N.E.2d 971 (2002).  
Therefore, “[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 and statutes relating to the same matter.”  State ex rel. Ryant Commt. v. 
Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 112, 712 N.E.2d 696 (1999); see 
also N. Olmsted, 93 Ohio St.3d at 533, 757 N.E.2d 314; Finkbeiner at ¶ 31. 
{¶ 18} The Newton Falls Charter contains no express language that 
conflicts with R.C. 731.17(B).  In Article III, Section 9, the charter states generally 
that all the city’s powers are vested in the council, which shall exercise its powers 
“by a majority vote.”  But the charter is silent as to how a council majority is 
determined when one or more members abstain, whether due to a conflict of interest 
(as with Breymaier in this case) or otherwise.  And if the charter is harmonized with 
the Revised Code, the term “majority vote,” at least when it is applied to council 
action that is taken by motion, means at least a majority vote of the members present 
at the meeting. 
{¶ 19} In arguing that only the voting members should be counted for 
purposes of determining a majority, the board relies on State ex rel. Shinnich v. 
Green, 37 Ohio St. 227 (1881), for the proposition that those who abstain from 
voting are deemed to have acquiesced to the action taken by the majority of those 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
who do vote.  In Shinnich, we determined that action by a city council was validly 
taken by a majority of legal voters who voted on a measure, even though the number 
of members voting was less than a majority of those present.  Id. at 232.  Though 
Shinnich involved only an organizational matter—i.e., the mode of electing one of 
the members to be the clerk of council—the board contends that the principle 
applies to other types of actions taken by a municipal legislative body.  See, e.g., 
Babyak v. Allen, 106 Ohio App. 191, 154 N.E.2d 14 (9th Dist.1958) (holding that 
a six-member village-council vote of 3-2 with one abstention was sufficient for 
passage of a zoning ordinance); but see State ex rel. Corrigan v. Tudhope, 41 Ohio 
St.2d 57, 60, 322 N.E.2d 675 (1975) (this court declined to extend the application 
of the Shinnich rule outside the context of a legislative body’s dispute over the 
mode of voting). 
{¶ 20} Shinnich, however, does not provide the applicable rule in this case.  
Even if we were willing to apply Shinnich outside the context of a municipal 
legislative authority’s vote on an organizational matter, the language of R.C. 
731.17(B) takes Shinnich’s holding out of play.  Because R.C. 731.17(B) applies to 
the procedure governing motions before the Newton Falls council, a majority vote 
of the members who were present was required for passage of the motion setting 
Breymaier’s recall election. 
{¶ 21} For these reasons, the Newton Falls council did not pass the motion 
to fix June 1, 2021, as the date of the recall election.  The motion failed for want of 
one vote.  The board has a legal duty to reject a measure that does not comply with 
ballot-access requirements and to prohibit its placement on the ballot.  See State ex 
rel. Burech v. Belmont Cty. Bd. of Elections, 19 Ohio St.3d 154, 155, 484 N.E.2d 
153 (1985).  Accordingly, we grant relators a writ of mandamus ordering the board 
to remove the issue of Breymaier’s recall from the June 1, 2021 special-election 
ballot. 
 
January Term, 2021 
9 
 
Writ of mandamus granted and  
writ of prohibition denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
BRUNNER, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., James F. Lang, Nicholas A. Bonaminio, 
and Brandon E. Brown, for relators. 
Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., John T. McLandrich, and Frank H. 
Scialdone; and Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecuting Attorney, for 
respondents. 
________________________