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

be cited as State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3667.]

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. 2023-Ohio-3667

THE STATE EX REL. HILDRETH ET AL. v. LAROSE, SECY OF STATE, ET AL.

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio3667.]

Elections—Mandamus—Petitioners failed to file an initiative petition in 

compliance with R.C. 731.28 by replacing first page of part-petitions after 

obtaining signatures—Petition as filed does not comply with R.C. 731.31, 

because each filed part-petition includes a title that was not presented to 

electors who signed it—Secretary of state and county board of elections 

abused their discretion and disregarded the law in overruling relators’ 

protest—Writ sustaining relators’ protest and removing initiative from 

general-election ballot granted.

(No. 2023-1213—Submitted October 6, 2023—Decided October 8, 2023.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relators, Marshall L. Blair Hildreth, 

Christopher N. Hildreth Blair, Sarah B. Lewis, Victoria Maddox, and Katelyn 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Roby, seek a writ of mandamus compelling respondents, Ohio Secretary of State 

Frank LaRose and the Logan County Board of Elections, to sustain a protest and 

remove an initiative from the November 2023 general-election ballot. We grant the 

writ.

Background

{¶ 2} Relators allege that in December 2022, a “drag queen dressed as an 

elf” participated in a Christmas parade on Main Street in the city of Bellefontaine. In 

April 2023, a group of Bellefontaine residents started the process for proposing an 

ordinance regarding “drag artist(s) and drag shows.” Under R.C. 731.32, the first 

step in the initiative-petition process was for the proponents to file a certified copy of 

the proposed ordinance with Bellefontaine’s city auditor. One of the proponents, 

Danielle Stefaniszyn, filed the following document with the city auditor in April 

2023:
January Term, 2023

3

{¶ 3} To qualify the initiative for the ballot, the proponents needed to 

circulate a petition and obtain valid signatures from at least 10 percent of the 

number of Bellefontaine electors who voted for governor at the most recent general 

gubernatorial election. See R.C. 731.28. Stefaniszyn, Devin Palmer, Skate 

Buchanan, Charles Palmer, Renee Price, and Julia Cook (collectively, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

“petitioners”) began collecting signatures for the initiative petition in April 2023. 

On April 14, one of the relators took this picture of one of the part-petitions that 

was being circulated for signatures:

{¶ 4} By July 2023, petitioners had obtained signatures on 27 partpetitions. R.C. 731.28 required petitioners to file the signed petition with the city 

auditor. On July 26, petitioners filed a signed petition, consisting of 27 part-
January Term, 2023

5

petitions, with the city auditor. It is undisputed that the filed part-petitions differed 

from the circulated part-petitions. Before filing the petition, petitioners replaced 

the first page of each part-petition with a new first page that added language 

indicating that the proposed ordinance would amend Bellefontaine Codified 

Ordinance 1177.02. This is the first page of one of the filed part-petitions:
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6
January Term, 2023

7

{¶ 5} On August 4, the city auditor forwarded the petition to the board of 

elections, which found that the petition contained a sufficient number of valid 

signatures.

{¶ 6} On August 25, relators filed a protest with the board of elections, 

alleging that the part-petitions filed with the city auditor differed “substantively”

from the ones that were circulated for signatures. Relators argued in the protest

that the board was required to invalidate the petition and remove it from the ballot. 

After a hearing on September 7, two board members voted to sustain the protest 

and two members voted to overrule it. The board submitted the matter to Secretary 

LaRose for a tiebreaking vote. See R.C. 3501.11(X).

{¶ 7} On September 19, Secretary LaRose voted against the protest. The 

secretary concluded that “the only relevant issue [was] whether the circulated partpetitions contained the full and complete title of the proposed ordinance” and that 

the circulated part-petitions “did contain the full and correct copy of the title of the 

proposed ordinance, specifically: ‘The classification of drag artist(s) and drag 

shows as Adult Cabaret Performance.’ ” (Boldface sic.) The secretary stated that 

the words added to the filed part-petitions “are not the title of the proposed 

ordinance; rather, they are headings that explain what the proposed ordinance 

would do should it pass.”

{¶ 8} Relators filed this mandamus action on September 21, seeking to 

compel respondents to sustain their protest. On September 28, this court granted 

petitioners’ motion to intervene as respondents. __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio3463, __ N.E.3d __.

Analysis

Laches

{¶ 9} The board of elections argues that relators’ claim should be denied 

under the doctrine of laches. We decline to consider this argument because the board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

waived its right to assert laches by failing to raise that affirmative defense in its 

answer to the complaint. See Civ.R. 8(C).

Mandamus

{¶ 10} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, relators must prove by clear 

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

legal duty on the part of respondents to provide that relief, and (3) the lack of an 

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Waters v. 

Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. Given the 

proximity of the November election, relators lack an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of the law. See State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose, 170 Ohio St.3d 

222, 2022-Ohio-3594, 210 N.E.3d 504, ¶ 7. To satisfy the first two requirements, 

relators must show that respondents engaged in fraud or corruption, abused their 

discretion, or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions. See id.

{¶ 11} Relators’ main argument is that the petition must be invalidated 

because petitioners replaced the first page of the part-petitions, adding language to 

the petition after the signatures were collected. They first argue that petitioners’ 

conduct violated R.C. 3501.38(I)(1), which provides that “[n]o alterations, 

corrections, or additions may be made to a petition after it is filed in a public office.” 

This argument lacks merit. Petitioners did not file the petition with the city auditor 

in April 2023; under R.C. 731.32, they filed “a certified copy of the proposed 

ordinance.” The petition was filed on July 26, and there is no evidence that anyone 

altered it after it was filed.

{¶ 12} Relators also argue that the petition did not comply with R.C. 731.28 

and 731.31. R.C. 731.28 prescribes a city auditor’s duties after receiving a petition 

that has been “signed by the required number of electors.” R.C. 731.31 requires 

each part-petition presented to electors to “contain a full and correct copy of the 

title and text of the proposed ordinance.” We hold that the petition did not comply 

with R.C. 731.28 or 731.31.
January Term, 2023

9

{¶ 13} As an initial matter, we note that Secretary LaRose misconstrued 

relators’ protest in making his tiebreaking vote. Although relators’ protest focused 

on the fact that petitioners altered the part-petitions before filing the petition with 

the city auditor, Secretary LaRose analyzed the protest as if “the only relevant issue 

[was] whether the circulated part-petitions contained the full and complete title of 

the proposed ordinance.” In this case, Secretary LaRose continues to suggest that 

the only issue that must be decided is whether the part-petitions included a title, 

even though relators’ argument focuses on the fact that petitioners altered the partpetitions. As discussed below, whether the new language constitutes a title is 

relevant, because the determination of that issue will inform whether the filed 

petition complied with R.C. 731.31. But the issue is not whether the circulated

part-petitions contained a title. The ultimate issue is whether petitioners’ alteration 

of the part-petitions invalidates the petition.

{¶ 14} We hold that petitioners, by replacing the first page of the partpetitions after obtaining signatures, failed to file a petition in compliance with R.C. 

731.28. Although R.C. 731.28 does not expressly prohibit the proponents of an 

initiative petition from altering the first page of each part-petition, by referring to a 

petition “signed by the required number of electors,” the statute inherently requires

that the part-petitions that electors sign are the same ones that are later filed with 

the city auditor. Indeed, the first pages of the filed part-petitions specify that “[t]his 

petition” must be signed by electors, and they state that “the undersigned” electors 

are proposing the title and text of the proposed ordinance. The part-petitions as 

filed with the city auditor contravene R.C. 731.28 because they were not signed by 

any electors.

{¶ 15} The filed petition also did not comply with R.C. 731.31. The first 

two sentences of R.C. 731.31 provide:
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

Any initiative or referendum petition may be presented in 

separate parts, but 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, and each part of any referendum petition shall 

contain the number and a full and correct copy of the title of the 

ordinance or other measure sought to be referred. Each signer of 

any such petition must be an elector of the municipal corporation in 

which the election, upon the ordinance or measure proposed by such 

initiative petition, or the ordinance or measure referred to by such 

referendum petition, is to be held.

(Emphasis added.) The second sentence, by referring to “[e]ach signer of any such 

petition,” makes clear that R.C. 731.31 prescribes how a petition must be presented 

to the electors who sign it. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1732 (11th Ed.2019) 

(defining “such” as “[o]f this or that kind” and “[t]hat or those; having just been 

mentioned”). R.C. 731.31 thus requires the title of a proposed ordinance to be 

included on each part-petition presented to electors.

{¶ 16} The language added to the part-petitions in July specifies that the 

proposed ordinance would amend Bellefontaine Codified Ordinance 1177.02. As 

shown above, that language is printed inside a box that is preceded by the prefatory 

statement, “The following is a full and correct copy of the title and text of the 

proposed Ordinance.” (Emphasis added.) The petition introduces the new 

language as a title, and we conclude that it is one.

{¶ 17} There is no question that the title of a proposed ordinance is material 

to a petition. A title “provides notice of the proposal to signers of an initiative 

petition. More so than the text, the title immediately alerts signers to the nature of 

[the] proposed legislation.” State ex rel. Esch v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Elections, 61 Ohio 

St.3d 595, 597, 575 N.E.2d 835 (1991). Secretary LaRose recognized the 
January Term, 2023

11

significance of the information conveyed by the new language when explaining his 

tiebreaking vote. He said that the new language “explain[s] what the proposed 

ordinance would do should it pass.” The petition as filed does not comply with 

R.C. 731.31, because each filed part-petition includes a title that was not presented 

to the electors who signed it.

{¶ 18} Secretary LaRose argues that the new language cannot be a title 

because the proposed ordinance that appeared on the circulated part-petitions

already had a title. According to Secretary LaRose, the first line of the originally 

proposed ordinance—“The classification of drag artist(s) and drag shows as Adult 

Cabaret Performance”—was the title. The secretary emphasizes that this language 

has the quality of a title because it is a sentence fragment that, standing alone, does 

not define any terms or regulate conduct. He also points out that unlike with 

referendum petitions, R.C. 731.31 does not require initiative-petition titles to 

include “the number and a full and correct copy of the title” of the ordinance. As 

discussed above, however, these arguments mistake what is at issue. The issue here 

is not whether the initiative petition would have been defective without the new 

language; it is whether the petitioners’ inclusion of the language after signatures 

had been collected invalidates the petition. Even if we were to accept Secretary 

LaRose’s conclusion that the proposed ordinance already had a title, that fact would 

not obviate the problem created by petitioners’ alteration of the part-petitions and 

their addition of another title.

{¶ 19} Secretary LaRose tries to downplay the significance of the new 

language, arguing that it is merely a “header” and that its inclusion is a “technical 

defect” in the petition. We reject these arguments.

{¶ 20} To start, there is no statutory basis for calling the new language a 

header. The relevant statutes do not use that term. As noted above, the petition 

itself introduces the new language as a title. Moreover, as discussed above, the new 

language conveys material information about the nature of the proposed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

ordinance—namely, that it would amend Bellefontaine Codified Ordinance 

1177.02. Secretary LaRose suggests that the belated inclusion of that information 

is at most a “technical defect,” pointing to testimony at the hearing indicating that 

circulators presented a copy of Bellefontaine City Ordinance Chapter 1177 to every 

person who signed the petition. But that testimony serves only to underscore the 

materiality of the information conveyed by the new language. The evidence shows 

that petitioners themselves understood the importance of communicating how the 

proposed ordinance would change the city’s existing law. By altering the partpetitions and adding substantive language after signatures were collected, 

petitioners failed to comply with R.C. 731.28 and 731.31.

{¶ 21} As a final matter, Secretary LaRose argues that we should deny the 

requested writ of mandamus because statutes governing the people’s initiative 

power should be “liberally construed” to permit the exercise of that power. See 

State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 5, 591 N.E.2d 1186 (1992). But the 

secretary has not shown that the relevant statutes are ambiguous. We lack authority 

to look beyond plain statutory meaning “under the guise of * * * liberal

construction.” Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347, 626 N.E.2d 

939 (1994).

{¶ 22} Secretary LaRose also asserts that we cannot substitute our 

judgment for his and that we must defer to his interpretation and application of the 

relevant election statutes. However, we recently clarified that the judiciary is never 

required to defer to an administrative interpretation of the law. TWISM Ents., 

L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, __ Ohio 

St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4677, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 3; see also State ex rel. Ferrara v. 

Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 64, 2021-Ohio-3156, 182 N.E.3d 

1142, ¶ 21 (“only the judiciary has ultimate authority to interpret the law”).
January Term, 2023

13

Conclusion

{¶ 23} Secretary LaRose and the board of elections abused their discretion 

and disregarded the law in overruling relators’ protest. Accordingly, we grant the 

requested writ of mandamus.

Writ granted.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 

and DETERS, JJ., concur.

__________________

The Steinhelfer Firm, L.L.C., and Tim Steinhelfer, for relators.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Erik J. Clark, Deputy Attorney General, and 

Amanda L. Narog, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Secretary of State 

Frank LaRose.

Eric C. Stewart, Logan County Prosecuting Attorney, and Breanne N. 

Parcels, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Logan County Board of 

Elections.

The Law Office of Josh Brown, L.L.C., and Joshua J. Brown, for 

intervening respondents.

________________________