Title: State ex rel. Chillicothe v. Ross Cty. Bd. 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. Chillicothe v. Ross Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5523.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-5523 
THE STATE EX REL. CITY OF CHILLICOTHE v. ROSS COUNTY  
BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Chillicothe v. Ross Cty. Bd. of Elections,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5523.] 
Mandamus and prohibition — City seeks a writ of mandamus to compel a board 
of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on a protest against an 
initiative petition or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition to prevent the 
board of elections from placing the initiative petition on the ballot — 
Writs denied based on laches. 
(No. 2009-1746 ─ Submitted October 15, 2009 ─ Decided October 21, 2009.) 
IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election action for a writ of mandamus to 
compel a board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on a protest 
against an initiative petition or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition to prevent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
the board of elections from placing the initiative proposed by the petition on the 
November 3, 2009 general election ballot.  Because relator failed to act with the 
requisite diligence to challenge the initiative petition and the board’s denial of its 
protest to the petition, we deny the writs based on laches. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} In 2007, City Council for relator, city of Chillicothe, adopted 
Ordinance No. 151-07, which authorized the mayor to enter into a contract with 
Redflex Traffic Systems (“Redflex”) to install red-light camera systems at 
designated intersections within the city.  The contract was attached to and 
incorporated in the ordinance by reference.  The mayor executed the contract with 
RedFlex as authorized by Ordinance No. 151-07. 
{¶ 3} On June 9, 2008, the Chillicothe City Council adopted Ordinance 
No. 62-08, which enacted Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances of Chillicothe 
to provide for the implementation of a traffic-enforcement camera system for the 
administrative enforcement of traffic-control signals and speed limits. 
{¶ 4} On December 9, 2008, William Kaltenbach filed with the city 
auditor a precirculation initiative petition to repeal Ordinance No. 151-07 and 
Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances of Chillicothe.  On April 17, 2009, 
Kaltenbach filed the signed petition with the city auditor.  The auditor transmitted 
the petition to respondent, Ross County Board of Elections, and the board 
determined that it contained 1,544 valid signatures.  On June 19, 2009, the city 
auditor certified the initative petition to the board of elections. 
{¶ 5} Fifty-six days later, on August 14, 2009, the city filed a protest 
with the board of elections challenging the initiative petition.  The city claimed 
that the ordinance proposed by the petition was illegal and unconstitutional, that 
the petition was confusing and misleading to the voting public, and that the 
actions of the city council in enacting Ordinance No. 151-07 and Chapter 315 of 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
the Codified Ordinances of Chillicothe were administrative, not legislative, and 
were therefore not subject to initiative proceedings. 
{¶ 6} At its September 2 meeting, the board of elections heard the 
arguments of the parties on Chillicothe’s protest, but declined to take any 
testimony or other evidence.  The city did not object to the board’s decision not to 
take testimony or other evidence and did not proffer any evidence.  At the 
conclusion of the arguments, the board convened an executive session, and, upon 
return to regular session, voted unanimously to deny the protest and place the 
initiative on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot.  Minutes of the 
meeting were available the next day, but the city did not request a copy of the 
minutes until September 15. 
{¶ 7} Twenty-six days after the board of elections denied its protest, the 
city filed this expedited election action on September 28.  Chillicothe requests a 
writ of mandamus to compel the board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial 
hearing on its protest or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition to prevent the 
board of elections from placing the initiative on the November 3, 2009 general 
election ballot.  The day after the city filed its complaint, the board of elections 
made available the absentee ballots for the election.  The board filed an answer to 
the complaint, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs in accordance with 
the expedited-election schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). 
{¶ 8} This cause is now before the court for our consideration. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 9} “We have consistently required relators in election cases to act 
with the utmost diligence.”  Blankenship v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 567, 2004-
Ohio-5596, 817 N.E.2d 382, ¶ 19.  “If relators in election cases do not exercise 
the utmost diligence, laches may bar an action for extraordinary relief.”  State ex 
rel. Craig v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 158, 2008-Ohio-706, 
882 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 11.  “The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) 
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the 
other party.”  State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277. 
{¶ 10} Chillicothe failed to act with the requisite diligence in asserting its 
claim for extraordinary relief in mandamus and prohibition.  Instead, the city 
delayed filing its protest until 119 days after the signed initiative petition was 
filed with the city auditor and 56 days after the city auditor certified the initiative 
petition to the board of elections.  Chillicothe delayed an additional 26 days after 
the board denied its protest and certified the initiative to the election ballot to file 
this action for extraordinary relief.  “[W]e have held that a delay as brief as nine 
days can preclude our consideration of the merits of an expedited election case.”  
(Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Landis v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 187, 189, 724 N.E.2d 775. 
{¶ 11} Chillicothe has no legitimate excuse for its prolonged periods of 
delay in this case.  The city did not need to wait for certification of the petition to 
file its protest.  See Mason City School Dist. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 107 
Ohio St.3d 373, 2005-Ohio-5363, 840 N.E.2d 147, ¶ 15.  Nor did the city need to 
wait for the completion of a transcript of the board hearing to file this prohibition 
action.  See State ex rel. Polo, 74 Ohio St.3d at 145-146, 656 N.E.2d 1277.  In 
fact, the board of elections presented evidence establishing that the minutes of the 
board’s September 2 meeting were available on September 3, but the city did not 
request a copy of the minutes until 13 days after the meeting. 
{¶ 12} The city’s attempts to excuse its own prolonged delay by pointing 
to the board’s delay in scheduling a hearing on its protest and the board’s 
purported failure to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing are unavailing.  See, e.g., 
Mason City School Dist., 2005-Ohio-5363, ¶ 18, quoting State ex rel. Ryant 
Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 114, 712 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
N.E.2d 696 (“ ‘Any additional delay by the board in failing to hold a protest 
hearing does not excuse relators’ delay in the submission of a proper protest and 
the election process’ ”). 
{¶ 13} Further, the city knew or should have known of the initiative 
petition when the petition was initially filed as a precirculation petition in 
December 2008 and as a signed petition in April 2009.  In fact, the petition was 
filed with the city auditor before it was submitted to the board of elections.  
Chillicothe also knew of the board’s decision on September 2 because the city’s 
representative attended and presented argument.  Despite this knowledge, the city 
failed to act any sooner than it did. 
{¶ 14} In addition, this delay resulted in prejudice.  “Our consistent 
requirement that expedited election cases be filed with the required promptness is 
not simply a technical nicety.”  State ex rel. Carberry v. Ashtabula (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 522, 524, 757 N.E.2d 307.  Among other things, expedited election 
cases “implicate the rights of electors underlying the statutory time limits of R.C. 
3505.01 and 3509.01.”  State ex rel. Ascani v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998), 
83 Ohio St.3d 490, 494, 700 N.E.2d 1234. 
{¶ 15} “Normally, this prejudice in expedited election cases occurs 
because relators’ delay prejudices respondents by making the case an expedited 
election case under S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9), which restricts respondents’ time to 
prepare and defend against relators’ claims, or impairs boards of elections’ ability 
to prepare, print, and distribute appropriate ballots because of the expiration of the 
time for providing absentee ballots.”  State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 
1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18. 
{¶ 16} If Chillicothe had acted more promptly in challenging the initiative 
petition, it is probable that this case could have been commenced more than 90 
days before the November 3 election so that the board of elections’ time to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
prepare and defend against the city’s claims would not have been restricted by 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). 
{¶ 17} Moreover, because of the city’s unjustified delay, the statutory 
deadline for having absentee ballots printed and ready for use had already passed 
before briefing had started in this expedited election case.  R.C. 3509.01 (absentee 
ballots “shall be printed and ready for use on the thirty-fifth day before the day of 
the election”).  “If relator[] had acted more promptly, this might have been 
avoided and any potential prejudice to the county in its statutory obligation to 
absentee voters would have been minimized.”  State ex rel. Vickers v. Summit Cty. 
Council, 97 Ohio St.3d 204, 2002-Ohio-5583, 777 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 18.  This is not a 
case in which the statutory deadline would have passed even under the best of 
circumstances.  See State ex rel. Squire v. Taft (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 365, 369, 
632 N.E.2d 883. 
{¶ 18} This case is comparable to other expedited election cases in which 
we have held that laches barred claims for a writ of prohibition to prevent an 
election from occurring.  See State ex rel. Fishman v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
116 Ohio St.3d 19, 2007-Ohio-5583, 876 N.E.2d 517 (laches barred expedited 
election case for a writ of prohibition when relator filed protest 16 days after 
nominating petition was filed with the board of elections and filed writ case 38 
days after the board denied his protest), and cases cited therein at ¶ 9.  The city’s 
reliance in its reply brief on nonelection cases, in which laches is an affirmative 
defense, is misplaced because in election cases, relators have the burden of 
establishing that they acted with the requisite diligence.  Id. at ¶ 10; State ex rel. 
Ohio Dept. of Mental Health v. Nadel, 98 Ohio St.3d 405, 2003-Ohio-1632, 786 
N.E.2d 49, ¶ 15.  The city did not meet that burden here. 
Conclusion 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
{¶ 19} Based on the foregoing, Chillicothe failed to exercise the diligence 
required of relators in election cases, and we deny the writs based on laches.  By 
so holding, we need not address the city’s claims.  Fishman at ¶ 11. 
Writs denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_____________________ 
 
Toni L. Eddy, Chillicothe Law Director, and James L. Mann, Assistant 
Law Director, for relator. 
 
Michael M. Ater, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard W. 
Clagg, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
____________________