Ohio Manufacturers' Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 42
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Relators (Ohio Manufacturers’ Association and others) challenged signatures on part-petitions for the proposed "Ohio Drug Price Relief Act" submitted under Article II, Section 1b; Secretary of State Husted had certified sufficiency and geographic distribution on Feb 4, 2016.
- Relators filed this original-action petition under Article II, Section 1g alleging four defects: (1) circulators listing nonresidential addresses; (2) contractor deletions (crossed-out signatures); (3) false circulator statements from overcounting signatures (circulators listing 28 when fewer signatures appeared); and (4) ineligible felons circulating petitions.
- Respondents Booth (petition committee) moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C), arguing lack of Section 1g jurisdiction over Section 1b proposal petitions and, alternatively, seeking dismissal of two claims (overcount and deletions) as a matter of law.
- The Supreme Court treated the pleadings and inferences in favor of relators and considered whether this court has original, exclusive jurisdiction under Article II, Section 1g and whether certain defects can invalidate entire part-petitions as a matter of law.
- The Court denied Booth’s jurisdictional challenge and also denied partial judgment on the pleadings as to the overcounted circulator statements and signature-deletion claims, because resolution depends on disputed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article II, §1g grants this court original, exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to signatures on §1b proposal petitions | §1g covers "all challenges made to petitions and signatures" and thus includes §1b proposal petitions | §1g does not extend to §1b proposal petitions; it applies only to initiative, supplementary, or referendum petitions in other sections | Court held §1g is broad and confers original, exclusive jurisdiction over petition-signature challenges, including §1b proposal petitions |
| Whether overcounted circulator statements (circulator wrote 28 when fewer signatures present) mandates invalidation of entire part-petition as a matter of law | Overcounts render circulator statements false and part-petitions invalid in whole | Overcount discrepancies can never justify invalidating an entire part-petition as a matter of law | Denied judgment on the pleadings; overcount claims raise factual questions (possible fraud/knowing misstatement) and cannot be resolved as a matter of law |
| Whether unauthorized crossing out of signatures by contractors requires invalidation of entire part-petition as a matter of law | Only circulators or signers may strike signatures under R.C.; contractor deletions thus void the part-petition | A pattern of deletions cannot, categorically, invalidate an entire part-petition as a matter of law | Denied judgment on the pleadings; factual development needed to determine effect of deletions |
| (Procedural) Whether two of the claims should be dismissed for lack of a viable remedy (declaratory relief/timing) | Relators sought declaratory relief that part-petitions/signatures are invalid and that petition failed requirements | Respondents argued Section 1g was not a proper basis and timing/timetable incompatibility foreclosed relief | Court rejected jurisdictional objection and refused partial dismissal; dissenters would dismiss for jurisdiction/timing concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Rayess v. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, 983 N.E.2d 1267 (Ohio 2012) (standard for Civ.R. 12(C) — pleadings construed in favor of nonmoving party)
- State ex rel. Spadafora v. Toledo City Council, 644 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio 1994) (part-petition not properly verified if circulator’s statement is false)
- State ex rel. Loss v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 281 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1972) (requirement to state number of signatures protects against later additions)
- State ex rel. Curtis v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 44 N.E.3d 261 (Ohio 2015) (slight undercounts do not require invalidation absent fraud or material misrepresentation)
- State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 602 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio 1992) (court overlooked overstated circulator statements where discrepancy arose from deletions directed by board and no fraud shown)
- Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 841 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 2005) (knowing undercount by circulator can justify invalidating part-petition)
- State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 800 N.E.2d 21 (Ohio 2003) (discusses limits on this court’s jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief)