Ohio Mfrs. Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act (Slip Opinion)
74 N.E.3d 399
Ohio2016Background
- Committee submitted ~10,029 part-petitions (≈171,205 raw signatures) supporting the Ohio Drug Price Relief Act; Secretary Husted sent them to county boards for verification and issued directives governing review.
- Constitutional thresholds: 91,677 valid signatures total and valid signatures from at least 44 of 88 counties (1.5% per county) required to qualify the initiative for legislative submission. County boards initially reported meeting both thresholds.
- Husted returned the petitions for re-review (Directive 2016-01) to investigate (1) unauthorized deletions (signatures blacked out) and (2) circulator statement overreporting (overcounts); after re-review he certified 96,936 valid signatures and transmitted the initiative to the General Assembly.
- Challengers (OMA) filed an original-action protest arguing (1) unauthorized deletions invalidated whole part-petitions under R.C. 3519.06(C), (2) some circulators gave nonresidential/nonpermanent addresses in violation of R.C. 3501.38(E)(1), and (3) widespread circulator overreporting (false attestation of witnessed signature counts) invalidated affected part-petitions.
- The Court sustained the challenge in part: it invalidated all signatures on part-petitions circulated by Roy Jackson and Kacey Veliquette (nonpermanent/nonresidential addresses), invalidated 9,374 signatures for overcounts, and otherwise rejected wholesale invalidation for unauthorized deletions; total invalidated = 10,303 signatures, leaving the petition 5,044 signatures short of the required 91,677.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized deletions (blackouts) on part-petitions | Deletions by unauthorized persons violate R.C. 3519.06(C) and thus invalidate entire part-petitions containing such alterations. | Deletions can be authorized only by circulator, signer, or attorney-in-fact per R.C. 3501.38(G)-(H); but unauthorized deletions do not require throwing out valid signatures — the crossed-out signature should be counted if otherwise valid. | Rejected plaintiff’s remedy: unauthorized deletions shown, but entire part-petitions need not be invalidated; counting crossed-out valid signatures is appropriate. |
| Circulators listing nonresidential/nonpermanent addresses | Part-petitions with circulator statements listing nonresidential/nonpermanent addresses violate R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) and should be invalidated in full. | Some circulators may be transient; a permanent mailing/contact address can satisfy the statute; as-applied constitutional challenge not established for all named circulators. | Sustained as to Jackson and Veliquette (their addresses were hotel/motel and not contactable): invalidate all signatures on their part-petitions. Denied as to Harper and Moore for lack of proof that listed addresses were nonpermanent or uncontactable. |
| Overcounting (circulator attests to more signatures than appear) | Overcounts indicate false circulator attestations (R.C. 3519.06(D)) and systemic overcounting warrants invalidation of affected part-petitions. | Overcounts can be benign arithmetic errors; established practice tolerates minor miscounts absent evidence of fraud; boards should review signatures individually. | Sustained: systemic overreporting here was substantial and could promote fraud; invalidate part-petitions with overcounts as specified (9,374 signatures invalidated). |
| Remedy / sufficiency and curative period | Challenge should invalidate enough signatures to show petition insufficient; challengers seek full relief. | Petitioners sought leave to cure; constitutional timelines and curative mechanisms apply. | Court orders invalidation of 10,303 signatures and gives committee ten days to submit additional valid signatures; if certified, secretary shall resubmit to the General Assembly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 841 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 2005) (R.C. 3501.38(G) permits circulator to remove invalid signatures to avoid false attestations)
- State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections, 602 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio 1992) (overcounts may be tolerated absent evidence they promote fraud; boards shouldn’t reject part-petitions for minor arithmetic errors)
- State ex rel. Loss v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 281 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1972) (requirement that circulator state number of signatures personally witnessed protects against additions after circulation)
- Kyser v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 303 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 1973) (post office box is not an elector’s residence under Ohio election law)
- State ex rel. Schwarz v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 181 N.E.2d 888 (Ohio 1962) (boards should avoid determinations that are too technical or arbitrary when handling signature-count discrepancies)
- State ex rel. Beck v. Casey, 554 N.E.2d 1284 (Ohio 1990) (deference to Secretary of State’s reasonable interpretations concerning signature-total requirements)