2021 Ohio 1038
Ohio2021Background
- Relators (Cincinnati Action for Housing Now and four electors) proposed a Cincinnati City Charter amendment to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund with an annual $50 million appropriation and specified potential funding sources (including city general funds, revenue from lease/sale of the Cincinnati Southern Railway, a developer fee, and a stock-option income tax).
- Relators gathered sufficient petition signatures; Cincinnati City Council adopted ballot-summary language over relators’ objections; Hamilton County Board of Elections certified a nearly identical condensed text; Secretary of State approved it.
- Relators filed an original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking revised ballot language they claimed was misleading, argumentative, or omitted material aspects of the amendment, invoking R.C. 3505.06(E) and the court’s ballot-language standards.
- The court applied the established test: language must tell voters what they are voting on, must not be persuasive argument, and technical defects are harmless only if cumulative effect is harmless.
- The court granted relief in part: it held that the board abused its discretion by inserting legal-opinion statements that two listed funding sources are prohibited by state law and ordered the board to revise that portion of the ballot language; it denied relief as to most other contested language and did not grant a writ against city council or the secretary of state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ballot language asserting two listed funding sources are prohibited by state law is improper | Such statements are argumentative legal conclusions not addressed by the amendment and improperly bias voters | Board/city council argued the statements were accurate explanatory text and justified by legal analysis | Court: Grant writ as to this text—statements are impermissible legal opinions; board must remove/redo that language |
| Whether language saying the $50M appropriation “shall take priority” and “could require” cuts misleads or argues against the measure | Relators: It misstates the amendment’s effect, implies loss of council authority and mandatory cuts | Respondents: Accurate description of consequence; within amendment’s subject matter and not factually incorrect | Court: Deny writ—language fairly and accurately explains potential budgetary effects |
| Whether ballot omits city council’s role in appointing trust-fund board members (labeling it an “unelected volunteer board”) | Relators: Omission of council’s appointment/confirmation role is material and misleading | Respondents: Council’s role is limited and not an essential omission; board composition description is accurate | Court: Deny writ—omission not material; “unelected” label factually accurate |
| Whether ballot misstates sources by changing “from among” to “to be paid from” and omits a potential voter-approved income-tax increase as a funding source | Relators: Change and omission obscure that funds may be drawn from multiple sources and that a voter-approved tax increase could fund the appropriation | Respondents: Disjunctive “or” indicates alternatives; the tax increase is a contingent/future measure and not a present funding source | Court: Deny writ on phrasing and omission—use of “or” acceptable and tax-increase language not required to be included |
Key Cases Cited
- Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 22 Ohio St.2d 197 (1970) (ballot language must fairly and accurately present the question to assure an informed vote)
- Minus v. Brown, 30 Ohio St.2d 75 (1972) (condensed text must be fair, honest, clear and complete; no essential part may be omitted)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati for Pension Reform v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 137 Ohio St.3d 45 (2013) (three-part test for ballot language; explanatory consequences permitted if accurate and within amendment's subject)
- State ex rel. Kilby v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 184 (2012) (board abuses discretion if ballot language fails R.C. 3505.06(E))
- State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St.3d 257 (2012) (omission of appointment mechanism for created body can be material)
- Beck v. Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St. 473 (1955) (ballot language that constitutes an unenforceable inducement or promise is impermissible)
- Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 137 (1988) (framework for evaluating propriety of condensed ballot language)