Title: Ethics First-You Decide Ohio Political Action Comm.. v. DeWine

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. Ethics First—You Decide Ohio Political Action Commt. v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 
2016-Ohio-3144.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-3144 
THE STATE EX REL. ETHICS FIRST―YOU DECIDE OHIO POLITICAL ACTION 
COMMITTEE ET AL. v. DEWINE, ATTY. GEN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ethics First—You Decide Ohio Political Action 
Commt. v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3144.] 
Mandamus—Elections—Initiative—R.C. 
3505.062—R.C. 
3519.01—
Constitutionality of requirement that initiative petition and summary be 
reviewed by Ballot Board—Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief can be granted. 
(No. 2016-0464—Submitted May 19, 2016—Decided May 24, 2016.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this original mandamus action, relators, Ethics First–You Decide 
Ohio Political Action Committee and three of its members, Ron Alban, Tim Boggs, 
and John Boyle Jr. (collectively, “Ethics First”), challenge the constitutionality of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
R.C. 3519.01(A) and 3505.062(A), as amended in 2006.  For the reasons discussed 
below, we deny the motion filed by respondent, Ohio Attorney General Michael 
DeWine, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  However, we grant DeWine’s motion 
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. We deny Ethics First’s second 
motion to expedite as moot. 
Background 
{¶ 2} Persons seeking to propose a law or constitutional amendment by 
initiative must submit their petition, along with a summary of the proposal, to the 
attorney general for review.  R.C. 3519.01(A).  Under the prior version of R.C. 
3519.01(A), if the attorney general certified the summary as fair and truthful, then 
the proposed law or amendment would be filed with the secretary of state and 
supporters could begin circulating petitions to qualify for the ballot. 
{¶ 3} On January 31, 2006, the General Assembly enacted Am.Sub.H.B. 
No. 3 (“H.B. 3”), 151 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5551.  As amended by H.B. 3, R.C. 
3519.01(A) now provides that a petition is transferred to the Ohio Ballot Board, not 
to the secretary of state, for review after the attorney general certifies the summary. 
{¶ 4} H.B. 3 further amended R.C. 3519.01(A) to add a requirement that 
“[o]nly one proposal of law or constitutional amendment to be proposed by 
initiative petition shall be contained in an initiative petition to enable the voters to 
vote on that proposal separately.”  R.C. 3505.062(A), as amended by H.B. 3, made 
the Ballot Board responsible for ensuring that an initiative petition complied with 
the “one law” requirement. 
If the board determines that the initiative petition contains 
more than one proposed law or constitutional amendment, the board 
shall divide the initiative petition into individual petitions containing 
only one proposed law or constitutional amendment so as to enable 
the voters to vote on each proposal separately and certify its 
approval to the attorney general. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
 
R.C. 3505.062(A).  If the Ballot Board divides an initiative petition, then the 
supporters must submit separate summaries to the attorney general for approval.  
Id. 
{¶ 5} The initiative proposed by Ethics First seeks to amend Article II of 
the Ohio Constitution by adding a new section, Section 43, entitled “Raising the 
Ethical Standards of the General Assembly.”  On March 14, 2016, DeWine certified 
Ethics First’s amendment summary as fair and truthful and transmitted the petition 
to the Ballot Board. 
{¶ 6} At its March 23, 2016 meeting, the Ballot Board, concluding that the 
initiative petition contained more than one proposed constitutional amendment, 
divided Ethics First’s submission into three separate proposed amendments.  As a 
result of the Ballot Board’s decision, DeWine will not submit the original, 
undivided proposed constitutional amendment to the secretary of state for the next 
step in the process. 
{¶ 7} The present lawsuit does not challenge the board’s decision to divide 
the petition.  Rather, Ethics First’s mandamus petition contains two legal 
allegations: first, that R.C. 3519.01(A) and 3505.062(A), as amended by H.B. 3, 
unconstitutionally limit the right of initiative.  And second, that these statutory 
provisions constitute governmental regulation of core political speech based on 
content, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 
Legal analysis 
Lack of jurisdiction  
{¶ 8} We will dismiss a mandamus complaint when we lack jurisdiction 
over the claims.  State ex rel. Brecksville v. Husted, 133 Ohio St.3d 301, 2012-
Ohio-4530, 978 N.E.2d 157, ¶ 9.  In addition, “ ‘[a] court can dismiss a mandamus 
action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that he 
can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of mandamus.’ ”  State 
ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124, 2010-Ohio-2761, 931 N.E.2d 
110, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-
5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 9} This court has original jurisdiction in mandamus actions.  Ohio 
Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(b).  However, “if the allegations of a 
complaint for a writ of mandamus indicate that the real objects sought are a 
declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction, the complaint does not state a 
cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”  State 
ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999).  The 
first argument in DeWine’s motion to dismiss is that Ethics First’s complaint should 
be dismissed as a disguised declaratory-judgment claim. 
{¶ 10} What distinguishes a proper mandamus complaint from an improper 
one is not whether the relator is seeking declaratory judgment as part of the 
complaint, but whether the complaint seeks to prevent or compel official action.  
State ex rel. Evans v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 437, 2006-Ohio-5439, 857 N.E.2d 
88, ¶ 20.  This distinction is critical: a prohibitory injunction qualifies as an 
alternative remedy at law that will defeat a request for mandamus, but a mandatory 
injunction does not.  State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 
553, ¶ 25.  Therefore, if a complaint seeks to prevent action, then it is injunctive in 
nature, and the court has no jurisdiction; if it seeks to compel action, then the court 
does have jurisdiction to provide relief in mandamus.  State ex rel. Holwadel v. 
Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 579, 2015-Ohio-5306, 45 N.E.3d 
994, ¶ 43. 
{¶ 11} When 
confronted 
with 
complaints 
that 
challenge 
the 
constitutionality of a statute, we have consistently construed them as seeking a 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
mandatory injunction to compel the respondent public official to abide by the 
provisions of preexisting law and therefore squarely within our original mandamus 
jurisdiction.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Zupancic v. Limbach, 58 Ohio St.3d 130, 133, 
568 N.E.2d 1206 (1991) (“Although the relators’ request is for this court to have 
the respondent refrain from exercising her statutory responsibility, the essence of 
their request is for respondent to abide by a former statute”).  The fact that 
adjudicating the case requires the court also to prohibit the official from acting 
under the current version of the statute is “only ancillary” and does not alter the 
fundamental nature of the relief sought.  Id.; see also State ex rel. Ohio Academy of 
Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 509, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999). 
{¶ 12} Our decision in State ex rel. Satow v. Gausse-Milliken, 98 Ohio St.3d 
479, 2003-Ohio-2074, 786 N.E.2d 1289, is not inconsistent with this rule.  In Satow, 
we held that the only relief sought in that case was injunctive because the 
respondents were already under a court order to abide by the terms of the 
preexisting statute, and therefore no additional relief in the form of an extraordinary 
ancillary mandatory injunction was warranted.  Id., ¶ 20. 
{¶ 13} We reject the contention that we lack jurisdiction and hold that 
Ethics First has pleaded a proper claim for declaratory judgment requiring the 
issuance of a mandatory injunction in order to afford complete relief. 
Failure to state a claim 
{¶ 14} We turn now to the question whether relators have stated a claim 
warranting relief in their challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that 
the Ballot Board review the initiative proposal and subdivide it if it contains more 
than one amendment.  Relators argue that this requirement impermissibly restricts 
the right of initiative granted by the Constitution. 
{¶ 15} Article II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution reserves to the people 
the right to propose, adopt, or reject legislation and constitutional amendments by 
referendum and initiative.  The General Assembly may neither enlarge nor diminish 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
the powers constitutionally reserved to the people.  State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 
Ohio St.3d 1, 5, 591 N.E.2d 1186 (1992). 
{¶ 16} The provisions of Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution, 
which govern the requirements for the initiative and referendum processes, are 
“self-executing,” but “[l]aws may be passed to facilitate their operation,” so long 
as such laws “in no way limit[] or restrict[] either such provisions or the powers 
herein reserved.”  Id.  A statute facilitates the initiative process if the purpose of the 
requirement is “not to restrict the power of the people to vote or to sign petitions, 
but to ensure the integrity of and confidence in the process.”  In re Protest Filed 
with Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 49 Ohio St.3d 102, 106, 551 N.E.2d 150 (1990); 
see also In re Protest of Brooks, 155 Ohio App.3d 370, 2003-Ohio-6348, 801 
N.E.2d 503, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.) (statutory requirement for disclosure of circulator 
compensation does not unconstitutionally restrict right of initiative, but instead, 
“provides potential signers with important information regarding the initiative so 
that * * * they may make a more informed decision whether or not to” sign, and 
“does not, in any meaningful manner or degree, restrict or limit the ability of people 
to sign initiative petitions”). 
{¶ 17} In Schaller v. Rogers, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-591, 2008-
Ohio-4464, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that requiring petition 
advocates to submit a petition summary to the attorney general for approval 
facilitates the process because it “arguably helps potential signers understand the 
content of the law more efficiently,” id. at ¶ 46, and deters fraud by circulators who 
might misrepresent the effect of the law, id. at ¶ 47. 
{¶ 18} Although the court acknowledged that the requirement reduced the 
available time to solicit supplemental signatures, the appellate court stressed the 
benefits of the summary requirements, noted the “limited” ability of the attorney 
general to impede the process, id. at ¶ 51, and concluded that the trial court had not 
abused its discretion in finding that the time burdens placed on the petitioners did 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
not unduly restrict the exercise of the right of referendum.  Id., ¶ 48-52.  Thus, the 
Schaller court implicitly found that the modest burden on the petitioners was 
outweighed by the benefit to the voters and the process in general. 
{¶ 19} We adopt the reasoning of the Schaller opinion.  When the Ballot 
Board subdivides a petition, R.C. 3505.062(A) merely requires the submission of 
new summaries to the attorney general.  That modest imposition does not unduly 
restrict the right of initiative, given the benefit the voters enjoy of being able to vote 
separately on the proposals. 
{¶ 20} In our judgment, Ethics First’s reliance on State ex rel. Slemmer v. 
Brown, 34 Ohio App.2d 27, 295 N.E.2d 434 (10th Dist.1973), is misplaced.  
Slemmer held that Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, which mandates 
that multiple constitutional amendments proposed by the General Assembly must 
be submitted to the voters on separate ballots, does not bar the legislature from 
proposing multiple constitutional amendments in a single resolution, so long as the 
amendments appear separately on the ballot.  However, Slemmer did not hold that 
a statutory “separate resolution” or “separate petition” requirement would 
unconstitutionally restrict the right of initiative if the General Assembly chose to 
adopt such a requirement. 
{¶ 21} For this reason, we find that it is beyond doubt that Ethics First can 
prove no set of facts entitling it to relief.  See O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants 
Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975), syllabus (setting forth 
standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)).  We hold that the mandamus 
complaint fails to state a claim warranting relief on the basis that the challenged 
H.B. 3 amendments to R.C. 3505.062 and 3519.01 impermissibly restrict the right 
to initiative. 
The First Amendment 
{¶ 22} Alternatively, Ethics First asserts that the challenged statutes 
“empower the Ohio Ballot Board to review and assess the content of the speech 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
being advocated in a constitutional amendment being proposed by initiative, and, 
then, in turn, to change or alter the content of a petitioner’s speech.”  This power, 
Ethics First asserts, is an unconstitutional content-based law that cannot survive 
strict scrutiny. 
{¶ 23} “Government regulation of speech is content based if a law applies 
to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message 
expressed.”  Reed v. Gilbert, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2218, 2227, 192 L.Ed.2d 236 
(2015).  The dispositive question is whether the regulation, on its face, “draws 
distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys.”  Id.  Plainly, the “separate 
petitions” requirement is not content-based.  It applies to all petitions, irrespective 
of the substantive message the petition seeks to communicate. 
The second motion to expedite 
{¶ 24} On March 30, 2016, when Ethics First filed its petition for a writ of 
mandamus, it also filed a motion to expedite consideration of the case and issuance 
of the writ.  We granted the motion to the extent that we ordered DeWine to file a 
response within five days, but we did not impose a S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08 expedited 
schedule upon the entire case.  145 Ohio St.3d 1433, 2016-Ohio-1455, 47 N.E.3d 
874. 
{¶ 25} When Ethics First filed its memorandum in opposition to the motion 
to dismiss, it simultaneously filed a second motion to expedite.  Although not 
captioned as such, the second motion to expedite was essentially a motion for 
reconsideration, albeit one that provided no new grounds for the court to consider. 
{¶ 26} In any event, given today’s disposition, the second motion to 
expedite is denied as moot. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 27} For the reasons stated, we grant the motion to dismiss for failure to 
state a claim, and we deny the motion to expedite as moot. 
Cause dismissed. 
January Term, 2016 
 
9
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
The Law Firm of Curt C. Hartman and Curt C. Hartman, for relators. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Jordan S. Berman, Steven T. 
Voigt, and Kevin C. Hulick, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. 
_________________