Title: State ex rel. Davis v. Beaver Twp. Bd. of Trs.

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. Davis v. Beaver Twp. Bd. of Trustees, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4177.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4177 
THE STATE EX REL. DAVIS ET AL. v. BEAVER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Davis v. Beaver Twp. Bd. of Trustees,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4177.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 504.01—Petition sought to compel a township board of trustees 
to adopt a resolution to have the county board of elections submit the 
question of limited home-rule government to the township electors—
Defective petition—Writ denied. 
(No. 2012-1295—Submitted September 11, 2012—Decided September 14, 2012.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, the 
Beaver Township Board of Trustees, to adopt a resolution to cause the Mahoning 
County Board of Elections to submit to the Beaver Township electors the question 
of whether the township should adopt a limited home-rule government.  Because 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
relators did not strictly comply with the applicable statutory procedure, we deny 
the writ. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Beaver Township of Mahoning County, Ohio, has over 6,000 
residents.  Relators, Julia Furhman Davis and Patricia Gorcheff, are Beaver 
Township residents and qualified state electors.  Relators and other electors 
circulated a petition on a form prescribed by the secretary of state entitled 
“Initiative Petition (Municipality or Home Rule Township),” which refers to R.C. 
504.14, 731.28 through 731.41, 3501.38, and 3503.06.  The initiative petition is 
addressed to the Beaver Township Fiscal Officer and requests the township 
electors to vote on a proposed ordinance that, if approved at the November 6, 
2012 general election, would establish Beaver Township as a limited home-rule 
government: 
 
 
We, the undersigned, electors of the township of Beaver 
Township, Ohio respectfully propose to the electors of such city, 
village or township for their approval or rejection at the general 
election to be held on the 6[th] day of November, 2012 the 
following Ordinance: 
* * * 
 
INITIATIVE PETITION TO ESTABLISH BEAVER 
TOWNSHIP AS A HOME RULE TOWNSHIP. 
 
Shall the township of Beaver adopt a limited home rule 
government, under which government the Board of Township 
Trustees, by resolution, may exercise limited powers of local self-
government and limited police powers[?] 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 3} A board of elections employee informed Davis that relators and the 
other petitioners needed to collect at least 296 signatures of township electors, 
which equaled 10 percent of the township voters who voted in the last 
gubernatorial election.  On July 23, 2012, relators and other petition circulators 
submitted the petition, which contained 369 signatures, to the township fiscal 
officer. 
{¶ 4} On July 27, the Beaver Township Board of Trustees held a special 
meeting to address the petition.  After reviewing the petition, the board accepted 
the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney’s office and adopted a resolution 
rejecting the petition. 
{¶ 5} Four days later, on July 31, relators filed this action for a writ of 
mandamus to direct the board of township trustees to adopt a resolution to cause 
the county board of elections to submit to the Beaver Township electors the 
question of whether the township should adopt a limited home-rule government.  
After the board of township trustees submitted an answer, the court granted an 
expedited alternative writ and issued an accelerated schedule for the submission 
of briefs and evidence.  ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2012-Ohio-3738, ___ N.E.2d ___.  
The parties have now submitted their briefs and evidence pursuant to the court’s 
accelerated schedule. 
{¶ 6} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
Analysis 
Mandamus 
{¶ 7} Relators request a writ of mandamus to compel the Beaver 
Township Board of Trustees to adopt a resolution to have the Mahoning County 
Board of Elections submit to the township electors the question of whether the 
township should adopt a limited home-rule government.  To be entitled to the 
requested extraordinary relief, relators must establish a clear legal right to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the board of township trustees to 
provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, 
¶ 6.  Relators must prove that they are entitled to the writ by clear and convincing 
evidence.  Id. at ¶ 13.  Because of the proximity of the November 6, 2012 general 
election, which is the election specified in their initiative petition, relators have 
established that they lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  
Id. at ¶ 6. 
Clear Legal Right and Clear Legal Duty: 
R.C. 504.01(A)(4) 
{¶ 8} For the remaining requirements, relators claim that they have 
satisfied the applicable requirements under R.C. 504.01(A)(4), which provides: 
 
 
If a township meets the population requirements of division 
(A)(2) [a population of at least 5,000 but less than 15,000 in the 
unincorporated territory of the township] or (3) [a population of 
15,000 or more in the unincorporated territory of the township] of 
this section, the electors of the unincorporated area of the township 
may petition the board of township trustees to adopt a resolution 
causing the board of elections to submit to the electors the question 
of whether  the township should adopt a limited home rule 
government.  Upon receipt of a petition signed by ten per cent of 
the electors of the unincorporated area of the township, as 
determined by the total number of votes cast in that area for the 
office of governor at the most recent general election for that 
office, the board of township trustees shall adopt the resolution.  
The question shall be voted upon at the next general election 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
occurring at least ninety days after the certification of the 
resolution to the board of elections. 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 9} Although relators cite R.C. 504.01(A)(4) in support of their 
mandamus claim, the petition they submitted to the township fiscal officer did not 
request the board of township trustees “to adopt a resolution causing the board of 
elections to submit to the electors the question of whether the township should 
adopt a limited home rule government” as required by that statute. 
{¶ 10} Instead, relators used a form prescribed by the secretary of state 
that allows electors who reside in the unincorporated areas of townships that 
already have limited home rule to propose by initiative petition a resolution to be 
submitted to township electors.  That is, relators used a form prescribed for 
initiative and referendum petitions filed pursuant to R.C. 504.14, which provides: 
 
In a township that adopts a limited home rule government, 
resolutions may be proposed by initiative petition by the electors in 
the unincorporated area of the township and adopted by election by 
these electors, and resolutions adopted by the board of township 
trustees may be submitted to these electors for their approval or 
rejection by referendum, under the same circumstances and in the 
same manner as provided in sections 731.28 to 731.40 of the 
Revised Code for municipal corporations, except that both of the 
following apply: 
(A)  Initiative and referendum petitions shall be filed with 
the township fiscal officer, who shall perform the duties imposed 
under those sections upon the city auditor or village clerk. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
(B)  Initiative and referendum petitions shall contain the 
signatures of not less than ten per cent of the total number of 
electors in the unincorporated area of the township who voted for 
the office of governor at the most recent general election for that 
office in that area of the township. 
 
{¶ 11} Under R.C. 504.01(A), the duty of the board of township trustees 
to adopt the electors’ petition is conditioned on the receipt of a petition “to adopt 
a resolution causing the board of elections to submit to the electors the question of 
whether the township should adopt a limited home rule government.”  Relators 
instead submitted an initiative petition to submit a proposed resolution to the 
electors pursuant to R.C. 504.14 in townships that have already adopted a limited 
home-rule government. 
{¶ 12} Under these circumstances, the Beaver Township Board of 
Trustees did not have a legal duty under either R.C. 504.01(A)(4) or 504.14 to 
adopt a resolution allowing the question of whether the township should adopt a 
limited home-rule government to be submitted to the electors.  “ ‘[T]he 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 it is.’ ”  State ex rel. Edwards Land Co., Ltd. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 129 Ohio St.3d 580, 2011-Ohio-4397, 954 N.E.2d 1193, ¶ 41, quoting 
State ex rel. Ditmars v. McSweeney, 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 476, 764 N.E.2d 971 
(plurality opinion). 
{¶ 13} Because R.C. 504.01(A)(4) and 504.14 do not state that substantial 
compliance is acceptable, their requirements must be strictly followed.  Relators 
did not submit the proper petition to the board of township trustees as required by 
R.C. 504.01(A)(4).  Instead, they submitted a petition purporting to be under R.C. 
504.14 to the township fiscal officer.  R.C. 504.14 does not apply because Beaver 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Township has not adopted limited home-rule government.  See State ex rel. 
Quirke v. Patriarca, 100 Ohio App.3d 367, 370, 654 N.E.2d 136 (1995).  And 
although the court liberally construes the rights of initiative and referendum, see 
S.I. Dev. & Constr., L.L.C. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 
2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 22, we will not do so when the applicable 
statutory requirements are—as here—not satisfied, see State ex rel. Gemienhardt 
v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666, 846 
N.E.2d 1223, ¶ 57. 
{¶ 14} Finally, insofar as relators’ claim suggests that their error came 
from the use of forms that might have been supplied by election officials to them, 
the board of township trustees is not estopped from asserting the defects in the 
petition presented to the township fiscal officer.  See State ex rel. Steele v. 
Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 37 
(relators’ reliance on forms prescribed by the secretary of state and advice given 
by the board of elections in completing and filing an initiative petition did not 
estop election officials from asserting defects in the petition). 
{¶ 15} Therefore, relators do not have a clear legal right to the requested 
extraordinary relief, nor is there a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the 
board of  township trustees to provide it. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, relators have not established by the 
requisite clear and convincing evidence that they are entitled to a writ of 
mandamus to compel the Beaver Township Board of Trustees to adopt a 
resolution pursuant to R.C. 504.01(A)(4) causing the Mahoning County Board of 
Elections to submit to the electors the question of whether the township should 
adopt a limited home-rule government.  We consequently deny the writ. 
Writ denied. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
Law Office of Warner Mendenhall, Inc., and Warner D. Mendenhall, for 
relators. 
 
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gina 
DeGenova Bricker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
______________________