Opinion ID: 4438761
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts relevant to the mandamus claim

Text: {¶ 7} The committee prepared an initiative petition that would allow city electors to vote on the courthouse project. The petition proposed to enact the following measure: REQUIRE VOTE ON COURTHOUSE Absent a majority vote of the qualified electors who are residents of the City of Medina, Ohio, (“the City”), the City shall not: 1) authorize, appropriate, or spend any funds for, or 2) use any city resources to carry out, or facilitate carrying out, any demolition or construction activity (whether internal or external) at the Medina County Courthouse or any structure located at 93 and/or 99 Public Square, Medina, Ohio. This restriction shall have the effect of law and shall be effective for a period of five (5) years. (Capitalization sic.) 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 8} On July 20, the committee filed a certified copy of the proposed initiative measure with Keith Dirham, the city’s finance director.1 On July 26, the committee submitted 1,0172 petition signatures to Dirham. In the cover letter accompanying the submission, committee member Patricia Walker wrote: Since the Charter of the City of Medina does not specify, it is my understanding that the state law and practice of the Medina County Board of Elections is to allow any petitioners an additional ten days to obtain signatures of qualified Medina City electors if the Board of Elections finds that the petitions do not contain the requisite number of signatures. On behalf of the Save Your Courthouse Committee, we would like that opportunity to obtain more signatures if we have not submitted enough signatures to have this measure placed on the ballot. {¶ 9} As required by R.C. 731.28, Dirham held the petition for ten days for public inspection. On August 6, he transmitted the petition to the board of elections. {¶ 10} On August 7, the board of elections advised Dirham that the petition did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. To qualify for the ballot, the petition had to contain at least 983 valid signatures, but the board of elections verified only 690 valid signatures. Later that same day, Dirham informed the committee of the signature shortfall. {¶ 11} A few hours later, Walker responded to Dirham with the following e-mail message: 1. Before circulating a municipal initiative petition, a petition committee must file a certified copy of the proposed measure with the city auditor or village clerk. R.C. 731.32. In Medina, the finance director serves as the municipal fiscal officer. Medina City Charter, Article V, Section V-3(c). 2. The official report of the board of elections shows that only 1,016 signatures were submitted for verification. The discrepancy is not material. 4 January Term, 2019 The Ohio Constitution and the past practice that has been consistently adhered to by the Board of Elections, should grant the Committee an additional 10 days to gather the needed number of signatures to place the measure on the ballot this November. Do we have your authorization to begin collection of the additional signatures beginning August 8, 2019? {¶ 12} Dirham forwarded Walker’s question to Gregory Huber, the municipal law director, who responded to Walker the next day. Huber wrote: In my opinion, no city official has the authority to either authorize or deny authorization to you with respect to collecting additional signatures. Moreover, I do not believe the Ohio Constitution allows you an additional 10 days to obtain signatures as I believe the additional 10 days only applies to State issues. The initiative petition that we are talking about does not involve a State issue. If you are thinking differently, let me know as it would not be the first time I am dead wrong. {¶ 13} On August 8, Walker asked again whether the committee would be afforded ten additional days to gather signatures. Huber responded the next day, again stating that the provision for a ten-day extension to collect additional signatures applied only for statewide petitions. {¶ 14} The next day, Walker asked the Medina County prosecutor and the director of the board of elections if they agreed with the city law director’s opinion that the committee was not entitled to a ten-day period to collect additional 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO signatures. The county prosecutor replied that he was unable to answer her question. {¶ 15} On August 13, Walker appeared before the board of elections to request the additional ten days. The minutes from the meeting state: The Chair stated that the [board] had consulted with the Prosecutor’s Office on the Courthouse Initiative Petition. The opinion of the prosecutor is that State Law does not allow an additional ten days for collecting signatures in the case of a municipal initiative. The board voted unanimously to deny the request for an extra ten days to collect signatures.