Title: State ex rel. Columbus Coal. for Responsive Gov’t v. Blevins

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. Columbus Coalition for Responsive Govt. v. Blevins, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-
3745.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-3745 
THE STATE EX REL. COLUMBUS COALITION FOR  
RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT ET AL., v. BLEVINS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Columbus Coalition for Responsive Govt. v. 
Blevins, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-3745.] 
Elections—Initiative petition for municipal ordinance—R.C. 731.32—Strict 
compliance with requirement to file copy of proposed ordinance with city 
auditor. 
(No. 2014-1337—Submitted August 20, 2014—Decided August 29, 2014.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action by relators, the Columbus 
Coalition for Responsive Government, Jonathan C. Beard, Willis E. Brown, 
Robert J. Fitrakis, and Suzanne M. Patzer (“the Coalition”), for a writ of 
mandamus to compel Andrea Blevins, the Columbus city clerk, to verify the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
signatures on an initiative petition and submit the proposed imitative to city 
council.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the writ. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} On April 15, the Coalition filed a certified precirculation copy of a 
proposed initiative ordinance, entitled “The Columbus Fair Campaign Code,” 
with the Columbus city clerk.  The clerk’s office accepted and date-stamped the 
filing, and no one informed the Coalition that the precirculation copy had been 
misfiled or that a copy needed to be filed with the city auditor.  The Coalition 
began collecting petition signatures and on July 15, 2014, submitted 497 part-
petitions to the city clerk. 
{¶ 3} On July 18, 2014, the Coalition received two documents from the 
city.  The first was a legal opinion from the Columbus city attorney stating that 
the part-petitions were defective because the Coalition had failed to file a certified 
precirculation copy with the city auditor, as required by R.C. 731.32.  The second 
document was a notification from Blevins, the city clerk, advising that, based on 
the city attorney’s legal advice, she would not submit the petition to city council. 
{¶ 4} On August 6, 2014, the Coalition filed an original action in this 
court for a writ of mandamus to compel Blevins to verify the petition signatures 
and submit the petition to city council.  Blevins filed an answer, and the parties 
filed briefs in accordance with the schedule governing expedited elections cases 
set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2).  The matter is now ripe for decision. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} R.C. 731.32 provides: “Whoever seeks to propose an ordinance 
* * * 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.” 
{¶ 6} The Columbus city charter is silent on the matter of precirculation 
filing requirements but does set forth postcirculation procedures.  Signed part-
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
petitions must be filed with the city clerk.  Columbus City Charter, Section 43.  
The clerk then has ten days to certify the number of signatures and submit the 
proposed ordinance to the city council for consideration at its next regular 
meeting.  Id.  The charter expressly adopts all general laws of the state applicable 
to municipal corporations that are not in conflict with the terms of the charter.  Id., 
Section 232. 
{¶ 7} When a city’s charter is silent on the subject of precirculation 
requirements, as Columbus’s is, then the procedures in R.C. 731.32 apply.  State 
ex rel. Julnes v. S. Euclid City Council, 130 Ohio St.3d 6, 2011-Ohio-4485, 955 
N.E.2d 363, ¶ 13.  And if a municipality has an auditor, then the proponents of an 
initiative must file a precirculation copy with the auditor, or else they have no 
right to place their initiative on the ballot.  State ex rel. Bogart v. Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, 67 Ohio St.3d 554, 555, 621 N.E.2d 389 (1993).  Columbus has 
a city auditor. 
{¶ 8} The Coalition contends that it met its precirculation obligation by 
filing the proposed initiative with the city clerk.  According to the Coalition, “the 
clear meaning of R.C. Section 731.32 is that a petition is to be filed with the 
officer of the government unit charged with the responsibility of accepting, 
reviewing and forwarding petitions to the governmental unit’s legislative body for 
further consideration.”  In Columbus, according to the Coalition, the most 
appropriate official with whom to file the precirculation copy is the clerk, because 
the city charter assigns postcirculation responsibilities to the clerk and gives the 
auditor no role in the process. 
{¶ 9} This argument overlooks the fact that the city clerk in Bogart had 
the same postcirculation duties as the Columbus city clerk.  Nevertheless, we held 
that the precirculation mandate of R.C. 731.32 controlled. 
{¶ 10} R.C. 731.32 requires strict compliance.  State ex rel. Barletta v. 
Fersch, 99 Ohio St.3d 295, 2003-Ohio-3629, 791 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 17; see also State 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
ex rel. Mika v. Lemon, 170 Ohio St. 1, 161 N.E.2d 488 (1959), paragraph two of 
the syllabus (holding that absent strict compliance with R.C. 731.32, “no duty 
falls upon the city clerk to receive and file with the board of elections a 
referendum petition otherwise valid”).  The Coalition’s position is the opposite of 
strict compliance: it asks us to elevate what the Coalition believes to be the 
General Assembly’s intent over the plain and unambiguous statutory language. 
{¶ 11} The Coalition cites Mika for the proposition that the proper official 
to receive the R.C. 731.32 precirculation submission depends on “who ‘performs 
the duties customarily performed by the officials designated in Section 731.32,’ ”  
quoting Mika at 5.  But the reason the court examined the job duties of various 
officials in Mika was that the city of Youngstown did not have a city auditor.  
Mika at 5 (“many cities no longer have city auditors, as is the case with 
Youngstown”).  This fact distinguishes the other cases cited by the Coalition.  
See, e.g., Julnes, 130 Ohio St.3d 6, 2011-Ohio-4485, 955 N.E.2d 363, ¶ 17 
(“South Euclid does not have a city auditor”); Edward Rose of Ohio, Inc. v. 
McLaughlin, 22 Ohio App.2d 190, 191, 259 N.E.2d 754 (2d Dist.1970) (“the 
charter does not provide for a city auditor, and there is none”).  Unlike the 
municipalities in those cases, Columbus does have an auditor, and so it is 
unnecessary to consider which Columbus official performs functions most 
comparable to the officials named in R.C. 731.32. 
{¶ 12} Finally, the Coalition suggests that Blevins has unclean hands 
because she had a duty to inform them that they were filing their precirculation 
copy in the wrong office.  The Coalition cites no authority for the existence of 
such a duty.  But even if such a duty existed, the doctrine of unclean hands 
requires a showing that Blevins engaged in reprehensible conduct, not merely 
negligent conduct.  State ex rel. Coughlin v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 136 
Ohio St.3d 371, 2013-Ohio-3867, 995 N.E.2d 1194, ¶ 16.  The Coalition has 
made no such showing. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
___________________ 
Law Offices of William M. Todd, Ltd., and William M. Todd, for relators. 
Richard C. Pfeiffer Jr., Columbus City Attorney, and Joshua T. Cox, Chief 
Counsel, for respondent. 
_________________________