Court Opinion

ID: 9889295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-08 21:09:04.360678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:23.174028
License: Public Domain

[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-Ohio-
                                       3667.]
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

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:

                                            2
                               January Term, 2023

       {¶ 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,

                                        3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

“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 part-
petitions. 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-

                                          4
                                 January Term, 2023

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:

                                           5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

          6
                                 January Term, 2023

        {¶ 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 part-
petitions 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-Ohio-
3463, __ 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

                                           7
                                 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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.

                                            8
                                  January Term, 2023

        {¶ 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 part-
petitions. 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 part-
petitions 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:

                                            9
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

               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

                                          10
                                   January Term, 2023

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

                                           11
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 part-
petitions 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”).

                                         12
                               January Term, 2023

                                   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.
                           ________________________

                                        13