[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-1428.] 

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. 2018-OHIO-1428

THE STATE EX REL. SCHUCK v. THE CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Schuck v. Columbus, Slip Opinion No. 

2018-Ohio-1428.] 

Elections—Mandamus—Writ of mandamus sought to compel removal of proposed 

city charter amendment from the ballot—Ballot summary conveys sufficient 

information to inform voters what they are being asked to vote on—Writ 

denied.

(No. 2018-0427—Submitted April 10, 2018—Decided April 13, 2018.) 

IN MANDAMUS. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relator, William Schuck, seeks a writ 

of mandamus to compel respondents, the city of Columbus and the Franklin County 

Board of Elections, to remove a proposal to amend the Columbus city charter from 

the May 8, 2018 ballot. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Schuck’s motion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

for leave to amend his complaint to name Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted as a 

respondent and we deny the writ. 

Background

Columbus Ordinance 0650-2018

{¶ 2} The Ohio Constitution authorizes municipalities to adopt charters for 

local self-government. Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Sections 7 and 8. The 

city of Columbus is a charter city, having adopted a comprehensive charter for its 

government. See State ex rel. Davis Invest. Co. v. Columbus, 175 Ohio St. 337, 

341, 194 N.E.2d 859 (1963). 

{¶ 3} The Columbus city charter sets forth two procedures by which the 

charter may be amended, only one of which is relevant here. Namely, the city 

council may submit a proposed charter amendment to the electors of the city, in the 

form of an ordinance approved by a two-thirds vote of the council. Columbus 

Charter 45. The ordinance shall provide for submission of the proposed charter 

amendment to the electors at the next regular municipal election or, if no regular 

municipal election is scheduled to occur within a designated timeframe, at a special 

election. Columbus Charter 45-2. In any ordinance placing a proposed charter 

amendment on the ballot, the city council must “prescribe a brief summary of the 

same, which shall be accurate, shall not be misleading, and shall be without material 

omission or argument.” Columbus Charter 45-4. 

{¶ 4} In its current form, the Columbus city charter provides: “The 

legislative powers of the city, except as reserved to the people by this charter, shall 

be vested in a council, consisting of seven members, elected at large.” (Emphasis 

added.) Columbus Charter 3. An “election at large,” also known as an “at-large 

election,” is defined as “[a]n election in which a public figure is selected from a 

major election district rather than from a subdivision of the larger unit.” Black’s 

Law Dictionary 631 (10th Ed.2014). Elsewhere, the charter spells out the operation 

of this at-large voting system: 
January Term, 2018 

3

 The candidates for nomination to the office of city council 

member who shall receive the greatest vote in [the] primary shall be 

placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election * * *, and 

the candidates at the regular municipal election, equal in number to 

the places to be filled, who shall receive the highest number of votes 

at such regular municipal election, shall be declared elected. 

Columbus Charter 41-5. 

{¶ 5} On September 6, 2016, the Columbus City Council and Columbus 

Mayor Andrew Ginther appointed a nine-member Charter Review Committee to 

review the structure and governance of city council. In its final report, the 

committee recommended that the council: 

2. Adopt a “District At-Large” form of Council whereby, * * * 

a. The city is apportioned into nine geographic Council 

districts using best practices in apportionment and 

reapportionment. 

b. To run for Council, a candidate must live in and file 

for a specific Council district seat. 

c. Elections are shifted from at-large field races to atlarge by-place races, where candidates who live in 

the same district run against each other for that seat. 

d. Every Columbus voter maintains his/her right to cast 

a vote for the candidate of their choice for every seat 

on Council. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 6} On March 5, 2018, the Columbus City Council approved Columbus 

Ordinance 0650-2018, which proposed to amend the city charter in multiple 

respects and which provided for the submission of the proposed charter amendment 

to the voters for approval. The ordinance included making the following proposed 

changes to the charter: 

 Amending Columbus Charter 3 to read: “The legislative powers of the city, 

except as reserved to the people by this charter, shall be vested in a council, 

consisting of nine members, elected from districts by the electors of the 

city”; 

 Adding a clause to Columbus Charter 4, stating that “[e]ach member of 

council shall be elected from one of nine districts by the electors of the city”; 

 Adding an express requirement to Columbus Charter 6 that a member of 

council shall have resided within the district the member represents for not 

less than one year preceding the regular primary election for the office; and 

 Amending Columbus Charter 41-5 by deleting much of the language and 

amending the remainder to read: 

 Every elector of the city may vote for any municipal 

office appearing on a primary, general, or special election 

ballot. The two candidates for nomination to any municipal 

office, including a councilmember elected by district, who 

shall receive the greatest number of votes in a primary 

election shall be placed on the ballot at a regular municipal 

election, and the candidates at the regular municipal election 

who shall receive the highest number of votes for their 

respective offices at such regular municipal election, shall be 

declared elected. 
January Term, 2018 

5

Thus, the changes proposed in Columbus Ordinance 0650-2018, if approved by the 

voters, would incorporate into the city charter the so-called “at-large by-place” 

system recommended by the Charter Review Committee. 

{¶ 7} To accompany Columbus Ordinance 0650-2018, city council 

approved a “Proposed Charter Amendment Ballot Summary,” consisting of 15 

bullet-point items. The first sentence of the summary states that the proposed 

charter amendment “[t]ransitions city council from seven members elected at-large 

to nine members elected from districts by the electors of the city.” 

Schuck’s protest

{¶ 8} On March 9, 2018, Schuck filed a formal protest against the proposed 

charter amendment. Schuck’s protest made two arguments. First, he argued that 

the proposed charter amendment was substantively unconstitutional. Second, he 

argued that the summary language—“nine members elected from districts by the 

electors of the city”—was “false and deceptive” because the council members 

would not be elected from districts—they would be required to reside in districts, 

but they would be elected citywide, a distinction Schuck argued was not made clear 

by the phrase “by the electors of the city.” 

{¶ 9} On March 12, the office of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted 

approved the final ballot language. And on March 15, the board of elections 

informed Schuck that it would not hold a hearing on his protest. It declined to 

consider his constitutional challenge to the proposed charter amendment for the 

reason that the board lacked authority to make that determination. (This issue is 

not before the court in this case.) As for his objection to the ballot language, the 

board informed him that 

[o]ur legal counsel believes that [this second objection] would 

appear to be moot in light of the fact that the Board already has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

submitted the ballot language summary to the Secretary of State 

[who] has responded with [his] approval. Moreover, the City of 

Columbus’ charter reserves the right of City Council to summarize 

the ballot language. 

{¶ 10} Schuck filed suit against the city of Columbus and the Franklin 

County Board of Elections on March 21 and filed an amended complaint on March 

22. His amended complaint asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the city 

and the board directing them to take all necessary steps to remove the proposed 

charter amendment from the May 8 ballot. Pursuant to Sup.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(1), 

the case was automatically expedited because it was filed within 90 days of the May 

8 election. 

Analysis

The merits of the mandamus complaint

{¶ 11} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear 

and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear 

legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) 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, 13. Given that the May 2018 election 

is imminent, Schuck does not have an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 

the law. See State ex rel. Stewart v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 124 Ohio St.3d 

584, 2010-Ohio-1176, 925 N.E.2d 601, ¶ 17 (holding that the relator had no 

adequate remedy at law because the election was imminent at the time the county 

board of elections denied the relator’s protest); accord State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. 

Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573, 

¶ 18. 

{¶ 12} As noted, the Columbus city charter requires the council, when 

placing a proposed charter amendment on the ballot, to adopt summary language. 
January Term, 2018 

7

According to the charter, such ballot language “shall be accurate, shall not be 

misleading, and shall be without material omission or argument.” Columbus 

Charter 45-4. Schuck seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the removal of the 

proposal from the ballot based on alleged deficiencies in the ballot language. 

{¶ 13} The requirements of Columbus Charter 45-4 mirror other electionlaw requirements. With respect to proposed statewide constitutional amendments, 

ballot language is presumptively valid “unless it is such as to mislead, deceive, or 

defraud the voters.” Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1. And when a local 

issue qualifies for the ballot, a county board of elections may use either the entire 

text of the proposal as ballot language, or it may prepare and certify a condensed 

text so long as the text “properly describe[s]” the proposal. R.C. 3505.06(E). (If 

the board chooses to use a condensed text, the full text of the proposal, along with 

the percentage of votes necessary for passage, must be posted in each polling place 

in an easily accessible location. Id.) 

{¶ 14} The text of a ballot statement “ ‘ “must fairly and accurately present 

the question or issue to be decided in order to assure a free, intelligent and informed 

vote by the average citizen affected.” ’ ” State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot 

Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257, 2012-Ohio-4149, 978 N.E.2d 119, ¶ 29, quoting State ex 

rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519, 426 N.E.2d 493 (1981), quoting 

Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 259 N.E.2d 501 

(1970), paragraph four of the syllabus. R.C. 3505.06 “serves to inform and protect 

the voter and presupposes a condensed text which is fair, honest, clear and 

complete, and from which no essential part of the proposed amendment is omitted.” 

State ex rel. Minus v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 75, 81, 283 N.E.2d 131 (1972). 

{¶ 15} We evaluate summary ballot language for proposed local issues 

using the same standards used to evaluate ballot language for proposed statewide 

constitutional amendments. State ex rel. Kilby v. Summit County Bd. of Elections, 

133 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-4310, 977 N.E.2d 590, ¶ 19. Those standards are 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

that (1) voters have the right to know what they are being asked to vote upon, (2) 

the use of language “ ‘in the nature of a persuasive argument in favor of or against 

the issue’ is prohibited,” and (3) the determinative issue is whether the cumulative 

effect of any technical defects in the ballot language is “ ‘harmless or fatal to the 

validity of the ballot.’ ” Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 

137, 141, 519 N.E.2d 347 (1988), quoting Bailey at 519. 

{¶ 16} In its third proposition of law, the city asks us to adopt a per se rule 

that a ballot summary cannot be deficient when it uses exactly the same language 

as the proposed charter amendment itself. As authority, the city cites State ex rel. 

C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 764 N.E.2d 

411 (2002), in which we refused to “penalize the township electors’ attempt to 

exercise their right of referendum for summarizing the resolution with substantially 

the same wording as the resolution itself,” id. at 445. But that statement was made 

in response to a challenge that the summary did not sufficiently explain the terms 

used therein (“AG” and “PUD” in a zoning referendum to refer to “agricultural” 

and “planned unit development”). In C.V. Perry, there was no harm in using the 

same abbreviations in the summary as those that appeared in the resolution itself. 

But quoting selected language from a portion of a proposed charter amendment 

verbatim cannot be a complete defense when the allegation is one of material 

omission. 

{¶ 17} From Schuck’s perspective, the critical changes to the charter, the 

ones that flesh out the new voting system, do not appear in proposed Columbus 

Charter 3. For example, the summary does not explain that voters will cast ballots 

in all council races, including those for representatives in districts where they (the 

voters) do not reside, a legislative change that appears in the proposed amendment 

of Columbus Charter 41-5. Also, one of the bullet points in the summary explains 

that if a vacancy on the council is filled by appointment, the person receiving the 

appointment must reside in the district, but the summary does not say that 
January Term, 2018 

9

Columbus Charter 6 would be amended to impose a residency requirement upon 

elected council members. 

{¶ 18} The city does not dispute that these would be material omissions if 

this information were in fact omitted. But the city contends that all the required 

information is contained in the single phrase employed in proposed Columbus 

Charter 3: “elected from districts by the electors of the city” necessarily means that 

the candidates for council must come from particular districts and that all the voters 

of the city would vote for each candidate, irrespective of a voter’s residency district. 

{¶ 19} The critical question, then, is whether city council satisfied the first 

prong of the Jurcisin three-part test: does the language of proposed Columbus 

Charter 3, imported wholesale into the summary, convey enough information for 

voters to know what they are being asked to vote on? We answer that question in 

the affirmative. The phrase “elected from districts by the electors of the city” 

conveys the important information: the council members will come from districts, 

but they will be elected “by the electors of the city.” (Emphasis added.) The final 

clause is unambiguous and would not lead a reasonable reader to believe that 

council members will be elected exclusively by the voters in their residency 

districts. 

{¶ 20} We hold that Schuck is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering 

the removal of the proposal from the May 8 ballot. 

{¶ 21} In the alternative, Schuck complains in his second proposition of law 

that the board of elections failed to conduct an independent assessment of the city’s 

proposed ballot language. But even assuming this to be true, the prayer for relief 

in Schuck’s amended complaint did not request a remand to the board. Moreover, 

compelling the board of elections to evaluate the ballot language at this time would 

be an empty gesture given the sufficiency of the ballot language. 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

The motion for leave to amend the complaint

{¶ 22} In its answer, the city pleaded, as an affirmative defense, that Schuck 

“has failed to name all necessary parties to this action including Secretary of State 

Jon Husted.” In response, Schuck filed a motion for leave to amend his amended 

complaint, if necessary, to add Husted as a respondent and also to add the Delaware 

and Fairfield County Boards of Elections. Respondents have not opposed the 

motion. 

{¶ 23} At the outset, we deny the portion of Schuck’s motion that asks for 

leave to amend in order to add the Delaware and Fairfield County Boards of 

Elections as respondents. Schuck states in his motion that he made this request in 

anticipation of an argument by the city of Columbus that those boards are necessary 

parties because portions of Columbus are located in those counties. However, the 

city has not advanced this argument. 

{¶ 24} The city does, however, contend that Secretary of State Husted is a 

necessary party, based on R.C. 3501.11(V), which requires county boards of 

elections, after approving ballot language for local questions and issues, to 

“transmit the language to the secretary of state for the secretary of state’s final 

approval.” Schuck disputes whether the secretary of state exercises any substantive 

oversight over the city’s proposed ballot language. 

{¶ 25} Given our disposition of Schuck’s mandamus complaint on the 

merits, we deem it unnecessary to resolve this question. See State ex rel. Beard v. 

Hardin, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2018-Ohio-1286, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 35 (holding that it was 

unnecessary to decide whether the relator failed to name all necessary respondents 

because the relator was not entitled to mandamus relief on the merits). We therefore 

deny the motion for leave to amend as moot. 

{¶ 26} Based on the foregoing, we deny the request for a writ of mandamus. 

Writ denied. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, and FISCHER, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2018 

11 

KENNEDY, DEWINE, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur in judgment only. 

_________________ 

William Schuck, pro se. 

Zach Klein, Columbus City Attorney, and Richard N. Coglianese, Joshua 

T. Cox, and Charles P. Campisano, Assistant City Attorneys, for respondent city of 

Columbus. 

Ronald J. O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. 

Lecklider, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Franklin County Board 

of Elections. 

_________________