Title: State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-5334.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HACKWORTH v. HUGHES, MAYOR, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110, 2002-Ohio-
5334.] 
Elections — Mandamus sought to compel Pickerington City Council et al. to 
place a proposed charter amendment on the November 5, 2002 election 
ballot — Writ denied, when — Petition did not fairly and substantially 
present the proposed charter amendment to the electorate — Violation of 
R.C. 731.31. 
(No. 2002-1547 — Submitted September 27, 2002 — Decided October 4, 2002.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Relator, Ted Lee Hackworth, a registered elector of Pickerington, 
Ohio, and other proponents of a proposed amendment to the Pickerington Charter, 
circulated a petition seeking to amend Section 2.06 of the Pickerington Charter.  
Each part-petition contained the following language: 
{¶2} 
“WHEREAS, it is our desire to amend section 2.06 of the Charter 
of the City of Pickerington to make provisions for certain ordinances and 
resolutions; 
{¶3} 
“WHEREAS; it is our desire that zoning ordinances and 
resolutions (1) always have the three full readings, (2) be passed or adopted by no 
less than ¾’s of the members of the City Council and (3) not be passed as 
emergency legislation. 
{¶4} 
“NOW THEREFORE, section 2.06 of the Charter of the City of 
Pickerington be amended to read as follows: 
{¶5} 
“SECTION 2.06   ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶6} 
“* * * 
{¶7} 
“NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER SECTIONS OF THIS 
CHARTER, OR ANY PROVISION IN THIS SECTION 2.06, EACH ZONING 
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE READ ON THREE SEPARATE 
MEETING DAYS, AND THE REQUIREMENT SHALL NOT BE DISPENSED 
WITH BY A VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 
{¶8} 
“The vote on the question of passage of each resolution, ordinance, 
or motion, shall be taken by ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ and the vote entered in [sic, in the] 
minutes.  No measures shall be passed without a concurrence of a majority of the 
members of Council, EXCEPT A VOTE ON THE QUESTION OF PASSAGE 
OF ANY ZONING RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE, WHICH SHALL NOT 
BE PASSED WITHOUT A CONCURRENCE OF AT LEAST THREE-
FOURTHS (3/4’S) OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. 
{¶9} 
“Emergency of [sic] ordinances or resolutions shall require a three-
fourths (3/4’s) vote of council for enactment.  If any emergency ordinance or 
resolution shall fail to receive the required three-fourths (3/4’s) affirmative vote, 
but received [sic] the necessary majority for passage as non-emergency 
legislation, it shall become effective as non-emergency legislation.  The Council 
before enacting shall determine that the ordinance or resolution is necessary for 
the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare of the 
citizens of Pickerington, Ohio, and the ordinance or resolution shall contain a 
statement of necessity of declaring an emergency.  NO ZONING ORDINANCE 
OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE ENACTED AS AN EMERGENCY 
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION AND NO ZONING ORDINANCE OR 
RESOLUTION SHALL CONTAIN AND [sic] STATEMENTS OF THE 
NECESSITY OF DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.”  (Capitalization sic.) 
{¶10} This language was followed by “SEE ATTACHMENT A FOR 
THE ENTIRE SECTION 2.06.”  Attachment A to the petition included the 
January Term, 2002 
3 
foregoing language, as well as this language that followed it, which was not 
capitalized: 
{¶11} “Each ordinance or resolution shall be authenticated by the clerk.  
The failure to sign shall not invalidate an otherwise properly enacted resolution or 
ordinance. 
{¶12} “Public notice, as required by laws of the State of Ohio or by this 
Charter, shall be given legislation once in a newspaper determined by Council to 
be of general circulation within the Municipality, and this publication shall 
contain a statement that a copy of the legislation is available for inspection at the 
office of the manager. 
{¶13} “By a majority vote of its members, Council shall cause the 
codification of the laws and ordinances of the Municipality.  This codification 
will be updated at least every ten (10) years to include all new legislation.  Copies 
of this code shall be placed in the Public Library, the Mayor’s office, and the 
Municipal offices for public use.” 
{¶14} According to Hackworth, the six changes to Section 2.06 of the 
Pickerington Charter proposed by the charter amendment are (1) to require three 
readings by respondent Pickerington City Council of any zoning ordinance or 
resolution, (2) to increase the number and percentage of votes required for the 
passage of zoning ordinances, (3) to increase the number and percentage of votes 
required for the passage of emergency ordinances and resolutions, (4) to eliminate 
the right and opportunity to enact or pass zoning ordinances and resolutions as 
emergency legislation, (5) to make the city manager’s office the place for public 
inspection of legislation, and (6) to increase the number of years between 
mandatory review and update of the charter by city council from five to ten years.  
Nevertheless, in the petition, only the first, second, and fourth of these changes 
were set forth in capital letters.  And in the petition, only the first, second, and 
fourth of the changes were specified in the preliminary “whereas” clauses. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶15} On August 1, 2002, Hackworth filed the petition with the city 
clerk.  The city clerk determined that the petition contained 356 valid signatures, 
which exceeded the number of signatures required for placement of the charter 
amendment on the ballot. 
{¶16} At the August 20, 2002 council meeting, the city clerk notified 
council that the charter amendment petition contained sufficient valid signatures.  
The city law director then distributed copies of his handwritten analysis of the 
petition.  He noted that the language of the proposed charter amendment 
contained typographical errors and was “confusing and misleading.”  On August 
24, 2002, Hackworth responded to the law director’s concerns.  Hackworth 
admitted numerous typographical errors in the petition and claimed that any 
substantive changes to Section 2.06 were intended as part of the proposed charter 
amendment.  Hackworth also noted that he knew of no requirement that charter 
amendment petitions capitalize all of the proposed amended language. 
{¶17} On September 3, 2002, the city council considered the petition but 
did not pass an ordinance to place the charter amendment on the ballot.  A motion 
to adopt the ordinance failed for lack of a second.  The law director concluded 
that although the petition contained sufficient signatures and was filed on the 
proper form, the capitalization of some of the proposed amendments but not 
others might constitute a defect. 
{¶18} On September 6, 2002, Hackworth filed this expedited election 
action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, the city council and its 
members, the mayor, the board of elections, and Secretary of State J. Kenneth 
Blackwell, to place the charter amendment on the November 2002 ballot.  
Hackworth’s complaint did not contain an affidavit affirmatively stating that it 
was based on personal knowledge, as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B).  
Respondents filed answers, and the Pickerington respondents and the board filed 
motions for judgment on the pleadings.  Hackworth filed a motion for leave to file 
January Term, 2002 
5 
an amended complaint, and the parties filed evidence and briefs pursuant to the 
expedited schedule in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9).  Hackworth’s reply brief was due on 
September 26, but he did not file one. 
{¶19} This cause is now before the court for a consideration of the 
merits. 
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings 
{¶20} We deny the Pickerington respondents’ and the board’s motions 
for judgment on the pleadings.  These motions are inappropriate in expedited 
election proceedings.  See State ex rel. Toledo v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections 
(2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 73, 74, 765 N.E.2d 854.  Nevertheless, we will consider 
their arguments as part of our consideration of the merits. 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B); Motion for Leave to Amend 
{¶21} Respondents city council, its members, and the mayor seek 
dismissal of this action or denial of the writ because Hackworth’s initial 
complaint failed to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). 
{¶22} Effective August 1, 2002, S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) was amended to 
specify that the affidavit required by this rule must be made on personal 
knowledge: 
{¶23} “All complaints shall contain a specific statement of facts upon 
which the claim for relief is based, shall be supported by an affidavit of the relator 
or counsel specifying the details of the claim, and may be accompanied by a 
memorandum in support of the writ.  The affidavit required by this division shall 
be made on personal knowledge, setting forth facts admissible in evidence, and 
showing affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to all matters stated 
in the affidavit.  All relief sought, including the issuance of an alternative writ, 
shall be set forth in the complaint.”  (Emphasis added.)  95 Ohio St.3d CXXXVI. 
{¶24} This amendment incorporates our construction of the previous 
version of S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B) to require affidavits based on personal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
knowledge.  See State ex rel. Sekermestrovich v. Akron (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 
536, 538, 740 N.E.2d 252, and cases cited therein.  We have routinely dismissed 
original actions, other than habeas corpus, that were not supported by an affidavit 
expressly stating that the facts in the complaint were based on the affiant’s 
personal knowledge.  See State ex rel. Tobin v. Hoppel, 96 Ohio St.3d 1478, 
2002-Ohio-4177, 773 N.E.2d 554; State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts. (2001), 92 
Ohio St.3d 324, 750 N.E.2d 167.  The affidavit attached to Hackworth’s 
complaint, in which one of his attorneys stated that the facts in the complaint were 
“true and accurate to the best of her knowledge and belief,” does not comply with 
S.Ct.Prac.R. X(4)(B). 
{¶25} Relator herein, however, unlike the relators in the cases that we 
dismissed for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. X, sought leave to file an 
amended complaint complying with the affidavit requirement of S.Ct.Prac.R. 
X(4)(B). 
{¶26} Under Civ.R. 15(A), as made applicable here by S.Ct.Prac.R. X(2), 
leave to amend a complaint following the filing of a responsive pleading “shall be 
freely given when justice so requires.”  Given the policy favoring liberal 
amendment of pleadings under Civ.R. 15(A), the lack of prejudice to respondents 
or the electorate, and the preference to resolve cases on their merits, we grant 
Hackworth’s motion for leave to amend his complaint.  See, e.g., State ex rel. 
Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 631, 716 N.E.2d 704; State ex 
rel. Huntington Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 533, 653 
N.E.2d 349. 
Laches 
{¶27} Respondents city council, its members, and the mayor also claim 
that this action is barred by laches.  They claim that Hackworth failed to act with 
due diligence because he moved for leave to file an amended complaint fourteen 
days after the September 3 council meeting.  But Hackworth filed his original 
January Term, 2002 
7 
complaint, which is substantively identical to the amended complaint, a mere 
three days after that meeting; therefore, respondents are not prejudiced in 
defending against the amended complaint.  And unlike other cases in which we 
denied motions to file amended complaints because they would cause delay, the 
amended complaint filed in this case does not extend the schedule for the 
presentation of evidence and briefs in this expedited election case past the date for 
having absentee ballots printed and ready for use.  Cf. State ex rel. Becker v. 
Eastlake (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 504, 756 N.E.2d 1228. 
{¶28} Therefore, laches is inapplicable. 
Mandamus 
{¶29} Hackworth requests a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to 
submit the proposed charter amendment to the electorate at the November 5, 2002 
election. 
{¶30} Section 7, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution authorizes 
municipal corporations like Pickerington to amend a home rule charter, and 
Sections 8 and 9, Article XVIII prescribe the applicable procedures.  These 
sections require the legislative authority of a city, e.g., city council, upon petition 
of ten percent of the electors to “forthwith” authorize by ordinance an election on 
a proposed charter amendment.  State ex rel. Commt. for Charter Amendment 
Petition v. Avon (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 590, 592, 693 N.E.2d 205.  “When a 
municipal legislative authority erroneously fails to submit a charter amendment 
when it is presented with a legally sufficient petition, extraordinary relief in 
mandamus is available to order placement on the next regular ballot.”  State ex 
rel. Commt. for the Charter Amendment Petition v. Hamilton (2001), 93 Ohio 
St.3d 508, 509, 757 N.E.2d 294. 
{¶31} The Pickerington City Council, however, had no duty to submit the 
proposed charter amendment to the electorate unless all statutory requirements 
were met.  State ex rel. Semik v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
St.3d 334, 335-336, 617 N.E.2d 1120.  Pertinent statutes, or portions thereof, 
including R.C. 731.31, that do not conflict with the Ohio Constitution and the city 
charter must be satisfied before the city council’s duty to submit the charter 
amendment to the voters arises.  Becker, 93 Ohio St.3d at 506, 756 N.E.2d 1228; 
Morris v. Macedonia City Council (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 52, 55, 641 N.E.2d 
1075; see, also, State ex rel. Spadafora v. Toledo City Council (1994), 71 Ohio 
St.3d 546, 549, 644 N.E.2d 393, in which we applied an R.C. 3519.06(D) 
requirement for initiative petitions to a petition seeking to place a proposed 
charter amendment on an election ballot. 
{¶32} R.C. 731.31 provides that “each part of any initiative petition shall 
contain a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed ordinance or 
other measure.”  This requirement applies to charter amendment petitions.  
Becker, 93 Ohio St.3d at 506, 756 N.E.2d 1228.  “[T]he purpose of this 
requirement is to fairly and substantially present the issue to electors in order to 
avoid misleading them.”  Stutzman v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 
Ohio St.3d 511, 514-515, 757 N.E.2d 297; see, also, Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 35, 38, 671 N.E.2d 1 (“Omitting the title and/or 
text of a proposed ordinance is a fatal defect because it interferes with a petition’s 
ability to fairly and substantially present the issue and might mislead electors”). 
{¶33} Generally, inclusion of the full text of an amendment or ordinance 
on a petition satisfies all constitutional and statutory requirements.  Christy, 77 
Ohio St.3d at 39, 671 N.E.2d 1.  It satisfies these requirements because the full 
text of a proposed charter amendment usually fairly and substantially presents the 
issue to petition signers.  Additionally, there is no specific requirement that 
petitioners capitalize the amended language in a proposed charter amendment. 
{¶34} Nevertheless, Hackworth’s charter amendment petition failed to 
comply with R.C. 731.31.  The petition language emphasizes only three of the six 
amendments to Section 2.06 of the Pickerington Charter by capitalizing the 
January Term, 2002 
9 
language of three amendments but failing to capitalize the language of the 
remaining three.  When coupled with the introductory preamble clause that 
specifies only the same three changes capitalized in the subsequent petition 
language, the petition could easily mislead petition signers to believe that only 
these three emphasized changes were being proposed by the amendment.  As 
respondents city council, its members, and the mayor assert, the “petition was 
presented to each signer and to City Council as purporting to contain only certain 
amendments.” 
{¶35} Consequently, the petition did not fairly and substantially present 
the proposed charter amendment to the electorate.  Because the petition violated 
R.C. 731.31, respondents city council, its members, and the mayor had no duty to 
order its submission to the electorate on the November 5, 2002 election ballot.  
And Hackworth concedes that the remaining respondents, the board and the 
Secretary of State, have not failed to perform any duty. 
{¶36} Based on the foregoing, we deny the writ. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting. 
{¶37} Hackworth’s charter amendment petition complied with R.C. 
731.31 in that it contained “a full and correct copy of the title and text of the 
proposed ordinance or other measure.”  Inconsistent capitalization within the “full 
and correct copy” cannot render it legally defective, given that the statute 
expressly demands only complete and accurate text.  I would grant the writ. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Susan J. Kyte and Sheryl D. Warner, for relator. 
 
Robert E. Mapes, Pickerington Law Director, and Donald J. McTigue, for 
respondents Pickerington Mayor Randall L. Hughes, Pickerington City Council, 
and Pickerington City Council Members. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Arthur J. Marziale Jr., 
Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Secretary of State. 
 
David L. Landefeld, Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney, and Roy E. 
Hart, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Fairfield County Board of 
Elections. 
__________________