Title: State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295, 2003-Ohio-3629.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BARLETTA ET AL. v. FERSCH, FIN. DIR., ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Barletta v. Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295, 2003-Ohio-3629.] 
Mandamus sought to compel Pickerington Director of Finance to certify the 
sufficiency and validity of referendum petitions concerning Pickerington 
Ordinance Nos. 2002-115 and 2002-116 to the Fairfield County Board 
of Elections for submission to the electorate at the November 4, 2003 
general election — Writ denied when R.C. 731.32 not complied with. 
(No. 2002-2189 — Submitted May 13, 2003 — Decided July 23, 2003.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On September 17, 2002, the council for the city of Pickerington, 
Ohio, adopted Ordinance No. 2002-115 (“Fox Glen Ordinance”).  The Fox Glen 
Ordinance approved the final plats for the Fox Glen Subdivision, a single-family 
detached residential development.  Section 1 of the ordinance mandated the 
attachment of the final plats to the ordinance and their incorporation in the 
ordinance: 
{¶2} 
“Council hereby approves the final plats for the Fox Glen 
Subdivision, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4.  A copy of the final plats shall be attached 
hereto and incorporated herein.”  (Emphasis added.)   
{¶3} 
Consistent with Section 1 of the Fox Glen Ordinance, a copy of the 
final plats was attached to the ordinance. 
{¶4} 
On October 1, 2002, the Pickerington City Council enacted 
Ordinance No. 2002-116 (“Sycamore Creek Ordinance”).  The Sycamore Creek 
Ordinance approved the final plat for a section of the Villages at Sycamore Creek, 
a planned multi-use development.  Like the first section of the Fox Glen 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Ordinance, Section 1 of the Sycamore Creek Ordinance required the attachment 
and incorporation of the final plat: 
{¶5} 
“Council hereby approves the final plat for the Villages at 
Sycamore Creek, Section 11.  A copy of the plat shall be attached hereto and 
incorporated herein.” 
{¶6} 
A copy of the final plat was attached to the ordinance. 
{¶7} 
On October 4, 2002, Pickerington Municipal Clerk Lynda D. 
Yartin provided to relators, various electors of Pickerington and Violet Township, 
certified copies of the Fox Glen and Sycamore Creek ordinances, including copies 
of the attached and incorporated plats.  On that same date, relators filed the 
certified copies of the ordinances, but without the plats, with respondent, 
Pickerington Director of Finance Linda A. Fersch.  Relators also filed 
precirculation copies of referendum petitions concerning the ordinances.  Fersch 
performs the functions of a city auditor for Pickerington. 
{¶8} 
On October 15, 2002, relators filed the circulated referendum 
petitions with Fersch.  Both petitions contained 23 part-petitions.  The plats were 
not included in any of the part-petitions.  Pursuant to R.C. 731.29, Fersch 
transmitted the petitions and certified copies of the text of the ordinances to the 
Fairfield County Board of Elections.  The board of elections found that the 
petitions contained sufficient valid signatures. 
{¶9} 
On November 7, 2002, Fersch was advised by special counsel for 
Pickerington that the enactment of the Fox Glen and Sycamore Creek ordinances 
constituted administrative actions that were not subject to referendum.  On 
November 8, Fersch notified relators that the referendum petitions were invalid 
because they concerned nonreferendable administrative actions.  On December 3, 
Fersch refused to reconsider her previous determination. 
{¶10} On December 23, 2002, relators requested a writ of mandamus to 
compel Fersch to certify the sufficiency and validity of the referendum petitions 
January Term, 2003 
3 
to the board of elections and transmit the Fox Glen and Sycamore Creek 
ordinances to the city council for submission to the electorate at the November 4, 
2003 general election.  Fersch answered the complaint and raised additional 
defenses, including a claim that the petitions did not comply with R.C. 731.32 and 
were therefore invalid.  We subsequently granted an alternative writ and allowed 
Dominion Homes, Inc., Princeton Capital Group, L.L.C., and Weston 
Investments, L.L.C., to intervene as respondents.  98 Ohio St.3d 1458, 2003-
Ohio-644, 783 N.E.2d 518.  The parties filed evidence and briefs, and Fersch 
moved to strike a portion of relators’ evidence and a portion of their initial brief. 
{¶11} The cause is now before the court for a determination of the merits. 
{¶12} Relators claim that they are entitled to the requested writ of 
mandamus to compel Fersch to certify the sufficiency and validity of the 
referendum petitions and to transmit the ordinances for placement on the 
November 4, 2003 election ballot.  In order to be entitled to the writ, relators must 
establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a corresponding clear legal duty 
on the part of Fersch to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Moore v. Malone, 96 Ohio St.3d 417, 
2002-Ohio-4821, 775 N.E.2d 812, ¶ 20. 
{¶13} Relators cannot prove a clear legal right to the requested relief or a 
clear legal duty on the part of Fersch to provide it because relators failed to 
comply with R.C. 731.32.  Under Section 8.07(2) of the Pickerington Charter, 
municipal electors “have the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance 
* * * in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of Ohio now 
or hereafter in effect.”  One applicable provision is R.C. 731.32, which requires 
that whoever seeks a referendum on an ordinance must, before circulation of the 
petition, file a certified copy of the ordinance or measure with the city auditor or 
village clerk: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶14} “Whoever seeks to propose an ordinance or measure in a municipal 
corporation by initiative petition or files a referendum petition against any 
ordinance or measure shall, before circulating such petition, file a certified copy 
of the proposed ordinance or measure with the city auditor or the village clerk. 
{¶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 or of the original ordinance or measure.”  
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶16} Relators did not comply with R.C. 731.32.  Although the municipal 
clerk gave relators certified copies of the Fox Glen and Sycamore Creek 
ordinances, with the plats attached to and incorporated into the ordinances, 
relators did not file the plats with Fersch.  Instead, they filed incomplete certified 
copies of the ordinances that failed to contain the plats expressly incorporated in 
the ordinances. 
{¶17} “ ‘The settled rule is that election laws are mandatory and require 
strict compliance and that substantial compliance is acceptable only when an 
election provision expressly states that it is.’ ”  State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit 
Cty. Council 97 Ohio St.3d 204, 2002-Ohio-5583, 777 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 32, quoting 
State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of Lorain Ordinance No. 77-01 v. Lorain 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 96 Ohio St.3d 308, 2002-Ohio-4194, 774 N.E.2d 239, ¶ 49.  
R.C. 731.32 does not expressly permit substantial compliance, so it requires strict 
compliance.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Crossman Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. 
Greene Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 132, 137, 717 N.E.2d 1091 
(“we require strict compliance with R.C. 731.32”); State ex rel. Mika v. Lemon 
(1959), 170 Ohio St. 1, 9 O.O.2d 304, 161 N.E.2d 488, paragraph two of the 
syllabus (“The requirement of [R.C.] 731.32 * * * is mandatory, and in the 
absence of compliance therewith no duty falls upon the city clerk to receive and 
file with the board of elections a referendum petition otherwise valid”).  Relators’ 
January Term, 2003 
5 
petitions did not comply with R.C. 731.32, and they cite no persuasive authority 
to excuse this noncompliance.  Consequently, Fersch had no duty to certify their 
sufficiency and validity. 
{¶18} By not complying with R.C. 731.32, relators denied interested 
citizens an opportunity to examine complete copies of the ordinances when 
relators filed them in the finance director’s office.  See Kleptz v. Cantrell, Miami 
App. No. 2002 CA 37, 2003-Ohio-910, 2003 WL 574629, at ¶ 17 (one of the 
purposes of R.C. 731.32 is to permit citizens to inspect the ordinance or measure 
that is the subject of the referendum petition); cf. State ex rel. Golem v. Cuyahoga 
Cty. Bd. of Elections (Sept. 18, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 78145, 2000 WL 
1369915 (“Attaching a certified copy of the ordinance to the petition ensures that 
citizens asked to sign a petition will have the opportunity to examine an 
authenticated copy of the original text of the ordinance”). 
{¶19} Moreover, although Fersch did not base her initial refusal to certify 
the referendum petitions on relators’ violation of R.C. 731.32, she is not thereby 
estopped from raising this violation.  “Estoppel does not apply against election 
officials in the exercise of governmental functions.”  State ex rel. Ditmars v. 
McSweeney (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 476, 764 N.E.2d 971; see, also, State ex 
rel. Shaw v. Lynch (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 174, 176-177, 580 N.E.2d 1068 (city 
council clerk not estopped from asserting noncompliance with former R.C. 731.32 
although clerk had represented to referendum petitioners that “full and accurate 
copies” of ordinances would be sufficient); cf. State ex rel. Athens Cty. Bd. of 
Commrs. v. Gallia, Jackson, Meigs, Vinton Jt. Solid Waste Mgt. Dist. (1996), 75 
Ohio St.3d 611, 616, 665 N.E.2d 202 (“a reviewing court is not authorized to 
reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a 
basis thereof”). 
{¶20} This result also does not contravene our duty to liberally construe 
municipal referendum petitions in favor of the right of referendum.  Instead, even 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
under the most liberal construction, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that 
relators failed to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 731.32 and thereby could have 
misled persons asked to sign the petition.  Cf.  E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. 
of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 298, 302, 699 N.E.2d 916. 
{¶21} Based on the foregoing, Fersch did not abuse her discretion or 
disregard applicable law by refusing to certify the sufficiency and validity of the 
referendum petitions and by failing to transmit the ordinances for placement on 
the November 4, 2003 election ballot.  Therefore, we deny the writ. 
{¶22} By so holding, we need not determine relators’ claims.  Nor need 
we address Fersch’s and the intervening respondents’ additional defenses to 
relators’ mandamus claim, e.g., noncompliance with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4) and lack of 
standing, or Fersch’s motion to strike.  We have consistently held that we will not 
issue advisory opinions, and this rule applies equally to election cases.  State ex 
rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 
778 N.E.2d 37, ¶ 12; State ex rel. Baldzicki v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 238, 242, 736 N.E.2d 893; In re Contested Election on 
November 7, 1995 (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 234, 236, 667 N.E.2d 362. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Moots, Cope & Carter, L.P.A., and Christopher E. Hogan, for relators. 
 
Robert E. Mapes, Pickerington Law Director, and Donald J. McTigue, for 
respondent. 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Kathleen M. Trafford and L. 
Bradfield Hughes; Shuler, Plank & Brahm and Richard C. Brahm, for intervening 
respondent Dominion Homes, Inc. 
January Term, 2003 
7 
 
Wrightsel & Wrightsel and R. Douglas Wrightsel, for intervening 
respondents Princeton Capital Group, L.L.C., and Weston Investments, L.L.C. 
__________________