Georgetown v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 3915

In November 2018 Georgetown voters approved a continuing 9.5‑mill levy for fire and EMS; the village repealed a prior 2.4‑mill levy after passage.
On August 7, 2019 circulators filed a petition under R.C. 5705.261 to reduce the 9.5‑mill levy to 2.5 mills.
At an August 13 board meeting the Brown County Board of Elections required 128 valid signatures; it invalidated 26 (including 13 printed names) and found the petition short.
A circulator produced written declarations from 12 of the challenged signers asserting they had printed their names; the board compared those signatures to its records, found them genuine, reversed the invalidations, and certified the petition to the ballot.
Georgetown filed an expedited complaint for a writ of prohibition arguing (1) the board abused its discretion by validating printed signatures that did not match voter‑registration legal marks and (2) the proposed reduction is not a proper question under R.C. 5705.261. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the board abused its discretion by validating 12 printed petition signatures	Printed signatures are invalid unless they match the cursive legal mark on the voter‑registration card; board improperly reversed invalidations	Board properly credited declarations and signature comparison; boards need not police nonconforming legal‑mark form when authenticity is shown	Court held the board did not abuse its discretion; affidavits/declarations and the board's comparison sufficed to validate signatures (relying on Crowl/Scott)
Whether a petition to reduce a recently approved 9.5‑mill levy to 2.5 mills is a permissible R.C. 5705.261 levy‑decrease question	R.C. 5705.261 permits decrease only of an "increased rate"; the 9.5 mill was an original/new levy (not an increase), so reduction is not authorized; Choices and Taxpayers for Westerville support this view	R.C. 5705.19(AAA)(5) independently authorizes reduction of levies for fire/EMS pursuant to R.C. 5705.261 language and should be read to allow a reduction regardless of levy type	Court held the petition is a permissible levy‑reduction question under R.C. 5705.19(AAA)(5) and R.C. 5705.261; it rejected the village's statutory construction that would render §5705.19(AAA)(5) superfluous

State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 144 Ohio St.3d 346 (2015) (boards may rely on affidavits/declarations to validate signatures and are not required to police form of legal mark)
State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171 (2014) (when a board’s hearing produces evidence of authenticity it must credit that evidence and validate the elector)
State ex rel. Green v. Casey, 51 Ohio St.3d 83 (1990) (earlier case recognizing cursive‑signature requirement; later superseded by statute)
State ex rel. Choices for South‑Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (R.C. 5705.261 does not permit measures that repeal a levy entirely; distinguishes decrease from repeal)
State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153 (2012) (a replacement levy not constituting an "increased rate" is not subject to R.C. 5705.261)
State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63 (2006) (standard for issuing prohibition: whether board acted fraudulently, corruptly, abused discretion, or clearly disregarded law)