Court Opinion

ID: 9823349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:54:21.760898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:19.346288
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 26} I would dismiss this case because this court lacks jurisdiction. This court has original, exclusive jurisdiction over challenges made under Article II, Section lg of the Ohio Constitution to petitions and signatures on petitions. Such challenges are expedited challenges, arising late in the process, subject to the accelerated calendar set forth in Article II, Section lg. Article II, Section lg is the sole source of jurisdiction cited in relators’ complaint. However, a challenge to a proposal petition transmitted to the General Assembly pursuant to Article II, Section lb cannot be brought under Article II, Section lg, because Article II, Section lb proposal petitions have their own, incompatible timetable.
{¶ 27} In addition, relators’ complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, which, as a rule, this court lacks jurisdiction to provide. State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio St.3d 347, 2003-Ohio-6447, 800 N.E.2d 21, ¶ 22.
{¶ 28} Accordingly, I dissent.
O’Neill, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.